Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Milford Docks Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Northampton Corporation Bill,

Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Croft's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Nottingham Corporation (Trent Navigation Bill [Lords],

Morton's Divorce Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD STUFFS (GOVERNMENT STOCKS).

Mr. DOYLE: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position
to give the quantity and value of the food stuffs still held by the Government, and when he is prepared to release the same with a view to the lowering of the cost of living, namely, bacon, cheese, meat, tinned goods, and other commodities; and what sum has been realised during the last 12 months by the Government sale of food stuffs?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 3rd April. In reply to the second part, I would refer him to the answer given to the hon. Member for Oxford by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on the 10th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER (PRICES).

Major BARNES: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade who are the persons appointed by him to investigate the prices of, and profits on, the manufacture and sale of beer; when they will report to him; and whether he will make a Report to the House?

Mr. BALDWIN: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 3rd April, I have received a Report from the officials of the Board of Trade, who have been inquiring into this
subject. While it is clear that profits from brewing are substantially larger now than they were before the War, I am not satisfied that any reduction in the price charged to the public is practicable in existing conditions. I do not, therefore, propose to take any further action at present.

Mr. KILEY: Would not the reduction in the prices of hops and sugar affect the question?

Mr. BALDWIN: It does affect it, but is set off to some extent by a fall in the demand for consumption.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Would not a very appropriate step be for the Government to reduce this absurd taxation?

Mr. BALDWIN: That is the only way in which the prices can be reduced, but it is probably within the knowledge of my hon. and gallant Friend that to reduce the price by a penny a pint would moan something like £30,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRAZIL (TARIFFS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 3 and 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether preferential tariffs are extended by the Government of Brazil to any countries other than Belgium and the United States of America; whether any opportunity has occurred whereby an agreement might be reached in respect of preferential tariffs between this country and Brazil;
(2) whether, in view of the long and friendly relationship between this country and Brazil, he will take steps to bring about a closer connection in the way of trade; and, in view of the foresight of the Brazilian Government in granting, whenever possible, preferential treatment to countries whose trade is beneficial to Brazil, will he approach the proper quarters in order that a similar state of affairs may be brought into existence as far as this country is concerned?

Mr. BALDWIN: So far as I am aware, the preferential tariff treatment accorded by Brazil to a limited number of articles originating in the United States of
America and Belgium is not extended to any other country. I should, of course, welcome an arrangement which would give us the same treatment, but, as I have already informed my hon. Friend, the Brazilian Government have been repeatedly approached on the subject by His Majesty's Government without success. Advantage will be taken of any opportunity which may occur in the future of re-opening the question with any prospect of success.

FLOUR (IMPORTS).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of prohibiting the importation into this country of flour, in preference to wheat, thereby increasing and cheapening the supply of offals for feeding purposes and also assisting the milling industry at home in the employment of more labour?

Mr. BALDWIN: Without fresh legislation, His Majesty's Government have no power to restrict the importation of flour, and I do not think it desirable to introduce such legislation. I have observed that, since the reduction in the price of flour in this country, the proportion of flour to wheat in our imports has shown a very sensible decline.

PRINTING, GERMANY.

Mr. HURD: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Berlin printing firm of Otto Elsner, when canvassing for business in this country, base their estimates upon a payment to what they call their dearest workmen, the machine operators, of 650 marks weekly, or less than 20s. at present values, which they compare with 92s. 6d. paid weekly to a corresponding London workman; and whether the information in his Department confirms this figure of German wages.

Mr. BALDWIN: This question is one for the Minister of Labour, but my right hon. Friend, who cannot be in the House at this moment, has asked me to read his reply, which is as follows: "The circumstance mentioned by my hon. Friend had not been brought to my notice. I understand that the rate of wage cited for printing machine operators in
Berlin is approximately correct, but that the rate for the corresponding class of worker in London is 100s., and not 92s. 6d."

MILK AND FABRIC GLOVES (IMPORTS).

Mr. HURD: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the latest available figures of the imports of fresh milk and preserved milk in various forms, showing countries of origin?

Mr. KILEY: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and value of fabric gloves imported during the months of January, February, and March, 1921, and also the number and value for the same months in the years 1920, 1914, and 1913?

Mr. BALDWIN: The information desired is not at present available, and special tables will need to be compiled. I will send these to the hon. Members when they are ready.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is urgency in this matter in view of the feeling among farmers that owing to the importation of milk this is unfair competition with them?

Mr. BALDWIN: I quite realise that at this moment it would be of great interest to have these figures and I will do all I can to expedite their publication.

MEAT.

Mr. GILBERT: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the report in the Press that all the importers of meat from South America have now joined the meat trust controlled by American importers: whether the object of this trust is to restrict imports so as to increase prices to retailers and consumers; whether his Department has any power in this matter to prevent this increase of prices of meat to the people of this country; and can he make any general statement on the subject?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am informed that it is not correct that all the importers of meat from South America have joined what the hon. Member calls the "meat trust." With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that a Sub-Committee appointed
by the Standing Committee on Trusts under the Profiteering Acts, 1919 and 1920, reported in 1920 that "no complaint was made of unfair trading on the part of the American companies beyond severe cutting of prices for the purpose of developing trade or clearing surplus stocks." If, is also understood that for a considerable part of the past 12 months the importation of frozen beef, at least, from South America, has been carried on at a loss. I do not consider, therefore, that an emergency has arisen which would justify the interference of His Majesty's Government.

TARIFFS, SPAIN.

Sir ROBERT CLOUGH: 63.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Department whether, under the New Spanish tariff, the Spanish Government has the right to grant inferior duties on particular items in the tariff to countries conceding equivalent advantages to Spanish products; and whether, in that case, the British Government is making any representations for the sympathetic treatment of British imports, in view of the sympathetic treatment accorded to Spanish products in this country, especially fruit, vegetables, and minerals?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Spanish Government have recently introduced a Bill to enable them to reduce the present rates of customs duty on particular classes of goods in return for equivalent advantages to Spanish products. As already stated in the House, negotiations are at present proceeding for the conclusion of a commercial treaty between this country and Spain.

Major C. LOWTHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that a Bill has passed the Cortes, and is now law?

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the exclusion of agricultural produce from the scope of Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Mr. BALDWIN: Articles of food or drink are already excluded from the scope of Part II of the Act.

HOLLOW AND GLASS WAEE.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet in possession of the Report of the Committee established by him under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to inquire into complaints made as to aluminium hollow ware and enamelled hollow ware, respectively; if so, when does he propose to lay that Report before the House; and what action has he decided to take in regard to an import duty?

Dr. MURRAY: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now prepared to relieve the suspense which exists, both in British manufacturing centres and in the distributive trade by disclosing officially whether the Glassware Committee of Inquiry, appointed under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, has by majority reported against the imposition of a duty; and what action, if any, has his Department decided to take?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Reports of these Committees are under consideration, and I hope very shortly to be in a position to make a statement with regard to them.

DOLLS' EYES.

Mr. KILEY: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Safeguarding of Industries Committee of Inquiry by one of the principal manufacturers of British dolls to the effect that he anticipated that British manufacturers would always have to import dolls' eyes from Germany or France; and whether, in view of this evidence, he will state why a tax on imported dolls' eyes is still imposed under an Act for the safeguarding of British industries?

Mr. BALDWIN: I understand that one manufacturer did make a statement of the nature indicated by the hon. Member, but I am not disposed to base policy on the prophecy of a single individual unsupported by any detailed evidence.

Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man is a manufacturer who is compelled to import these goods? How can he import them in competition with other manufacturers who have not paid this duty?

Mr. BALDWIN: That does not affect my answer.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Does this interesting statement also apply to Teddy bears?

BRONZE POWDERS.

Mr. KILEY: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the Report of the Committee set up under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, Part II, in respect of bronze powders; and, if so, at what date does he anticipate being able to publish his decision as to making an Order under the Act in regard to this commodity?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

DUTY (MANUFACTURED COMMODITIES).

Mr. MOSLEY: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 2,000 commodities liable to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which were not manufactured in the United Kingdom prior to the passage of this Act, are now being manufactured in this country; and what is the nature of the articles so manufactured?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not aware of the basis for the figure given by the hon. Member, and it is not possible, without very elaborate inquiries, to give detailed information of the kind he desires. But I may point out especially to the very substantial progress made in those branches of the chemical industry which are comprised within the chemical heading of the Schedule, and account for the greater number of items in the lists issued thereunder.

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: Is it possible to give more detailed information on the lines of the question, as it would be of interest both to those who support this Bill and those who oppose it?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am always glad to answer any question so far as I am able.

Mr. MOSLEY: Was not this figure of 2,000 given us by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I cannot remember that.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.S. "HORNSEE" (NAVAL COURT).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the finding and order of a Naval Court held at the British Consulate-General, Alexandria, on the 21st December, 1921, to investigate the circumstances attending the abandonment of the British steamer "Hornsee," of the Port of London, which finding was to the effect that the circumstances of the vessel's loss were highly suspicious, that the ship was prematurely abandoned, and that no attempts appear to have been made to save her; that the facts that the ship was so much out of her course on the voyage from Syracuse to Alexandria, that a false position was given in her wireless telegram for assistance, and that her policy of insurance expired two days later, gave rise to grave suspicion; that the master was worthy of censure for the way in which his evidence was given and the manner in which he performed his duties as master of a ship, and that, the ship being British, the only Englishman on board was the wireless operator, this adding considerably to the difficulty of examining the case; whether the Board of Trade are satisfied that the "Horn-see" was a vessel employed habitually in voyages between ports outside the United Kingdom, under Section 6 (1) of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919; whether the master and officers, being aliens, held British certificates; and whether he will consider the advisability of so amending the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, as to prevent the occurrence of cases of this kind?

Mr. BALDWIN: My attention has been drawn to the finding and order of the Naval Court held at the Consulate-General, Alexandria, on 21st December, 1921, to investigate the circumstances attending the abandonment of the s.s. "Hornsee." This vessel was employed habitually in voyages between ports outside the United Kingdom, and neither the master nor any of the officers was the holder of a British certificate. I do not think there is sufficient case for proposing an amendment of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, as regards officers of British ships trading abroad.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the finding referred to? Is it correctly stated in the question?
Does he not think it sufficiently serious to warrant careful consideration of further legislation?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that this matter was discussed at some length in 1919, when the Act in question was passed, and I am not aware of anything that has arisen since then which would lead the House to alter legislation which was before it so recently.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there any way in which the disastrous result that has occurred in this case can be averted in future?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

REPARATION DYES.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of reparation dyes received from the Germans during the year 1920–21 and the value realised; whether all these dyes were sold through the medium of the central importing agency; and what was the amount of commission and expenses allowed to this organisation?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am unable to state separately the value of reparation dyes received from the Germans during the year 1920–21, but the total value of reparation dyes received from December, 1919, to 31st March, 1921, was £549,094, and the amount realised from sales during that period was £380,062. The dyes were all sold through the central importing agency, who were paid a commission, to include expenses, of 3½ per cent, on the amount realised.

TURKEY.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any official information to the effect that the Turkish Nationalist Government at Angora have agreed to the terms agreed by the recent conference of Allied foreign Ministers in Paris as the basis of an armistice and the revision of the Treaty of Sèvres, upon the condition that the Greek forces evacuate Asia Minor within four months; whether he will take steps to ensure the presence of British and other Allied officers in the territory to be evacuated forthwith, and throughout the difficult period of evacua-
tion; and whether any reply to the Allied proposals has been received from the Hellenic Government?

Sir J. D. REES: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any answer has yet been received from Turkey regarding the new terms?

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Government at Angora has accepted the suggestion for an armistice; what conditions, if any, were attached to the acceptance of an armistice; and what reply has been sent to this proposal?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The Greek Government have accepted the armistice proposal. The Angora Government have accepted in principle the proposal for an armistice, and have expressed their readiness to send delegates to a conference to examine conditions of peace, but they have qualified their acceptance by the proviso that Greek evacuation of Anatolia shall begin at once and be completed within four months. Arrangements for assuring order during the evacuation have been elaborated by the Allied military authorities under Marshal Foch, but I cannot at present describe them in detail.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do we understand that the conditions on which the Angora Government insist, preparatory to an armistice, have been forwarded to the Greek Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think the Greek Government is aware of the conditions.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the armistice to take place or not?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That I cannot answer at the moment. The reply is conditional.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to the statement in the Press that 2,000 Greek officers and a large number of Greek troops in the Smyrna area refuse to be bound by the armistice?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I have no information as to that statement.

Captain COOTE: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that the steps to prevent disorders during the evacuation are satisfactory, and will he ensure that His Majesty's Government have representatives on the spot to see that disorders do not take place?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: We are in the provisional stage of negotiations. I think the conditions proposed are satisfactory.

Captain COOTE: But the disorders may start any day.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 60.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Nationalist Government has recently entered into a further treaty or agreement with the Moscow Soviet Government; and, if so, what are the main provisions of this treaty or agreement?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of such an agreement.

REPARATION COAL.

Mr. HURD: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to statements that British coal exports to France and Belgium have to compete upon extremely disadvantageous terms with German reparation coal, the value of which under the Treaty of Versailles is based upon the German pit price; and whether any of this German reparation coal that may be surplus to our Allies' present requirements is exported by them to other Continental markets to the exclusion of British coal?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have seen statements of the kind referred to. They are based on a misapprehension. It is true that, for the purpose of the reparation account, the value of deliveries of German coal is reckoned on the German pit price basis, but the price charged to French and Belgian consumers for this coal is-regulated by their Governments, and is sufficiently high to avoid competition with coal produced at French and Belgian mines. But for the reparation arrangements, the coal thus supplied by Germany could have entered the open markets of Europe upon terms against which British coal might have had great difficulty in competing owing to the unfavourable state
of the exchanges. With regard to the second part of the question, my information does not confirm the suggestion that German reparation coal is being exported from France and Belgium. A statement recently published by the French Minister of Finance shows that all the fuel delivered by Germany to France has been allotted for consumption in France. I may also refer my hon. Friend to an answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Durham on 13th February last.

GALLIPOLI.

Sir J. D. REES: 54.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposal to give the peninsula of Gallipoli to the Greeks will come under reconsideration; and whether this area can be subjected, mutatis mutandis, to some such treatment as is to be applied to the Dardanelles?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not clearly understand the meaning of the question. The navigation of the straits will be controlled by an international Commission. The military control of the Gallipoli peninsula, which is the European shore of the straits, will be entrusted to an Allied force. It is not proposed to depart from these dispositions.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

UNIVERSITIES (STATE SCHOLARSHIPS).

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education what would be the cost in 1922 of awarding the same number of State scholarships tenable at the universities as were awarded in

(1)
(2)
(3)


Nature of the disease from which the teachers were suffering.
Number of teachers who received Disablement Allowances during the
year ended 31st March, 1922.
Proportion of number in Column (2) to each thousand teachers in recognised service.


Diseases of the Nerves
…
…
60
.33


Diseases of the Heart
…
…
34
.18


Diseases of the Lungs.
…
…
44
.24

TEACHERS (PENSIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is intended to apply to those areas only which have adopted the Burnham scales the proposal of the Geddes Report that teachers should

1921; whether ho will consider the hardship to those whose parents have kept them at school at considerable sacrifice in order that they might compete this year; and whether the same award can be made to girls, for whom the university scholarships available are few in number and of small amount, the proportion of university scholarships for girls and boys being 1 to 13?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The cost of awarding in 1922 the same number of State scholarships as were awarded in 1921 would be, approximately, £48,000 in all, of which about £10,000 would fall in 1922–23, £16,000 in 1923–24 and 1924–25, and £6,000 in 1925–26. I regret that I am unable to award State scholarships to girls only during the time that the making of new awards under the scheme for State scholarships is in abeyance.

TEACHERS (ILLNESS).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number per 1,000 of teachers employed in State schools who break down annually from nerve, heart, and lung diseases, respectively?

Mr. FISHER: The only records bearing on this matter which are available relate to teachers who, being in "recognised service" for the purposes of the School Teachers (Superanuation) Act, 1918, were awarded "disablement allowances" under that Act during the year ended 31st March, 1922. I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are an follow:

contribute 5 per cent, of the salary towards pensions?

Mr. FISHER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on 16th March to the hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire (Mrs. Wintringham).

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Burnham standard scale for teachers as agreed to by both panels was reduced, after agreement had been arrived at and before publication, by the action of the Treasury; if so, how much was the reduction; and was he consulted and consenting?

Mr. FISHER: There are four standard scales for teachers in public elementary schools, to whom presumably the hon. and gallant Member refers. No alteration in these scales was made by or at the instance of the Treasury.

INFANTS' SCHOOL, HUNWICK.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 45.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the report of the sanitary surveyor of the Auckland Eural Council as to the condition of the infants' school, Horwich, in which it is stated that the schools were worse than cowsheds; whether he has received any report as to the condition of these schools; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. FISHER: I assume that the question relates to the Church of England school at Hunwick in the County of Durham. The Board have received a copy of a report of the medical officer of health upon the premises, which is certainly severe but does not contain the statement mentioned. They are in communication with the local education authority and school managers.

Oral Answers to Questions — CITY OF LONDON RECORDER.

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS:
25. To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement by the Lord High Chancellor that he would be surprised if the recent appointment of the hon. and learned Member for Upton (Sir Ernest Wild) had not been accompanied by a condition that he should resign his seat in this House either immediately or in the near future; and whether such condition was in fact made when the appointment was sanctioned?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to postpone this question. May I ask when it will be convenient for me to put the question again? The House is to rise on Wednesday next.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I would be obliged if my hon. Friend would postpone the question until after the Recess. I must communicate with the Lord Chancellor, and at present I am unable to say when I shall be able to get a letter through.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will gladly do as suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BATTLESHIPS (BOMB ATTACKS).

Mr. RAPER: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the substantial divergence of opinion between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty regarding the proved potentialities of aircraft in sinking battleships and the experiments carried out in the United States; and whether he will make a statement thereon?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not considered that it would be in the public interest to make a statement on this matter at present.

Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty in another place on 30th March was fair neither to the Navy nor to the Air Force, and was calculated surely to belittle the work of the Air Force?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I am not sufficiently familiar with what occurred in another place, and I could not answer that question without notice.

LEAVE (RAILWAY FACILITIES).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 88 and 89.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether, in view of the fact that the railway companies can put on special trains at excursion fares for the public for race meetings and football matches, he will again press the companies to grant a similar concession to service men when proceeding on leave, seeing that ample notice would be given of the days when the men would travel and full particulars of numbers, etc.;
(2) whether the railway companies have yet replied to the Admiralty request that men proceeding on Easter leave in special leave trains may be allowed tickets at the excursion-fare rates as charged to the general public?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I regret to say that the railway companies have refused to grant any concession to men proceeding on Easter leave. I may add that the companies have been asked to a conference with representatives of the Service Departments to discuss the whole matter, in the hope that they will, on reconsideration, agree to the re-introduction of a concession which the Services enjoyed for many years before the War, especially in view of the recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure, which included a large proportion of gentleman connected with railway management.

Sir B. FALLE: Does my hon. Friend mean that the railway companies have been asked to meet the Admiralty?

Mr. AMERY: Yes; they have been asked to meet the Admiralty and the other Services.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Devonport has a Motion on the Paper to reject the Railway Bill to-night unless these facilities are given?

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman represent to the railway companies that the men at Rosyth, especially the married men, will be unable to take their Easter leave unless some concession be made?

Mr. AMERY: We have represented to the railway companies the great hardship involved to many of the men in being refused these facilities.

LODGING ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 90.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in the case of officers employed at the Admiralty and who are borne on the books of H.M.S. "President," the lodging allowance made to them is an allowance to meet an expense incurred in earning the particular salary due to them as officers on the books of that ship?

Mr. AMERY: The reply is in the negative.

NATIONALITY LAW.

Sir B. CHADWICK: 27 and 107.
asked the Prime Minister (1) if he is aware
that a unanimous resolution was adopted by the British chambers of commerce abroad, at their meeting in London on the 20th April, 1921, urging that British grandchildren born abroad should not be deprived of the nationality of their parents as imposed by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914; that children born of British parents abroad, who voluntarily came home to fight for the motherland, now rank as aliens under that Act; that there are many British families residing abroad to-day where brothers and sisters are of various nationalities under that Act; seeing that this injustice was brought to his notice in a telegram sent to him on the 25th June, 1921, from the members of the British chambers of commerce in the Argentine Republic, what steps do the Government propose to take in the matter;
(2) if he can facilitate the amendment of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, so as to provide for the acquisition of British nationality by children born of British subjects abroad; and whether he is aware that the withholding of these amenities from British subjects abroad is a great hardship and is causing widespread dissatisfaction and resentment?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to reply. I can only repeat the answers given earlier in the Session by the Leader of the House that a Bill on this subject has been drafted, and that efforts are being made to obtain the concurrence of all the self-governing Dominions so that the Bill may be ready for the first suitable opportunity for legislation. The assent of Canada and of Newfoundland has not yet been received.

Sir B. CHADWICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the date of the earlier statement to which he refers?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot at the moment, but I will get it.

Sir J. BUTCHER: As the introduction of this Bill has been promised by successive Home Secretaries for nearly seven years, can the right hon. Gentleman state an approximate date for its introduction?

Mr. SHORTT: No; I cannot give an approximate date when we shall get the consent of all the self-governing Dominions.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some representations to Canada, if that is the Dominions holding this up, seeing that South Africa has agreed to it and the Canadian Prime Minister has agreed to it?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, I am making representations.

GEORGIA.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any information as to the state of affairs in Georgia; whether that country is still occupied by Russian troops, who are taking from the inhabitants all their means of subsistence and driving them to starvation and disease; and whether this is one of the subjects that will be considered at Genoa?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Clitheroe on 2nd March, to which I can add nothing.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the matter be discussed at Genoa?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot guarantee what subjects will be discussed at Genoa.

Lord R. CECIL: Do the Government not know at all what their representatives at Genoa are to discuss?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Generally speaking, yes.

RUSSIA (FAMINE).

Lord R. CECIL: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any further information with regard to the Russian famine; whether the Norwegian Government have officially brought this question before the Council of the League of Nations; whether the Government will place in the Library the documents referring to the action of the Norwegian Government; and whether he will state what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government thereto?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Reports from the British famine relief organisations in the field show that conditions are growing worse chiefly owing to failure of transport. It is feared that it has only been possible to carry out a small part of the minimum programme for the spring sowings. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. Having regard to the fact that full information regarding conditions in the famine area in Russia is now available, His Majesty's Government do not feel confident that any useful purpose could be served by sending there a Committee of Inquiry.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the Government consider whether it is possible for this country to do anything to assist transport to Russia and at the same time relieve unemployment here?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not sure.

Lord R. CECIL: Has this matter been considered? If the hon. Gentleman has not been informed about Genoa, can he inform me on this point?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The possibilities of the situation in Russia are one of the main subjects for discussion at Genoa.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

RELIGIOUS MINORITIES (SAFEGUARDS).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 31.
asked the Prime Minister, whether the British Government will urge the immediate summoning of a special meeting of the Council of the League of Nations in order to prepare the necessary steps to fulfil the responsibilities of the League in regard to the Armenians and the Moslem and Christian minorities in Adrianople and Smyrna, respectively, proposed to be thrown upon the League by the recent Conference at Paris of Allied Foreign Ministers which dealt with the Treaty of Sèvres?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think this matter can be usefully considered until the Turkish and Greek Governments have accepted the Allied peace proposals.

MANDATES.

Lord R. CECIL: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been made to give effect provisionally to the A
Mandates in the same way as was done in the case of the B Mandates; and whether any further steps have been taken in regard to the latter class of Mandates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In a letter dated the 3rd October, 1921, from the President of the Council of the League of Nations to the Prime Minister, His Majesty's Government were requested to carry on the administration of territories concerned in the spirit of the Draft Mandates. His Majesty's Government are now following that policy in Palestine and Iraq. As regards the B Mandates, I have to refer to the reply returned to my hon. Friend the Member far Stafford on 27th March. A reply has now been received from the United States Government, and is under consideration.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the reply from the United States be published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer that question without notice.

EXPENSES (AUDIT).

Major C. LOWTHER: 50.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state why the expenditure of money provided by British taxpayers towards the expenses of the League of Nations is not to be audited in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General; why any unexpended balance is not to be surrendered by the League at the end of the financial year; and to whose benefit does any such balance accrue?

Mr. FISHER: His Majesty's Government share of the expenses of the League is provided as a "Grant-in-Aid," and is, therefore, exempt from the ordinary process of auditing by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, whose statutory duty is confined to seeing that the sum charged against the Grant-in-Aid has been paid to the grantee. (See Public Accounts Committee's Return, published in 1911, page 390.) The accounts of the League are audited in detail by the auditors of a Government chosen by the Council from the members of the League. The audit of the accounts for the first budgetary period of the League was, as a matter of fact, carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor - General's Department. The
excess of revenue over expenditure in any year is carried forward into the accounts of the League for the ensuing year, and applied in relief of members' contributions for that year.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that this arrangement will prevent the Public Accounts Committee of this House investigating these charges? Will it remove all knowledge of the matter from the House of Commons?

Mr. FISHER: I imagine that is so—that is to say, the Grant-in-Aid will be audited by the Government appointed by the Council of the League. That audit, of course, may not always be conducted by the British Government, but, I presume, the result will be common knowledge.

Sir H. CRAIK: But it will be outside the competence of the Public Accounts Committee appointed by this House?

Mr. FISHER: That is so.

Lord R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in that respect there is any difference between this and any other contribution by this country for international purposes, such as that under the Postal Union?

Mr. FISHER: None whatever.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is not that exactly the same position with regard to the grants in the Scottish Universities?

Mr. FISHER: That is so.

CONTRIBUTION (GREAT BRITAIN).

Major LOWTHER: 51.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the United Kingdom's share of expenditure for the expenses of the League of Nations is to be increased from 4.84 per cent, to 9.55 per cent.?

Mr. FISHER: The increased contribution which this country is to make towards the expenses of the League of Nations results from the adoption by the Second Assembly of a revised basis for the allocation of the League's expenses, but the new scale will not become operative until the necessary amendment to Article VI of the Covenant has been I ratified by at least 26 members of the
League, including the members of the Council, and it is to be reconsidered by the Assembly of 1923.

Major LOWTHER: Does that mean that other nations may put up the percentage of our contribution just as they will to any figure, without our having the opportunity of voting against it?

Mr. FISHER: No, that is not a fact.

Sir J. D. REES: Is not the increase in the British contribution due really to the fact that other nations do not pay their subscriptions?

Mr. FISHER: No, it is due to the fact that the original arrangement was found to be very anomalous. It had, for instance, the anomaly of requiring contributions from Australia, Canada and South Africa on the same basis as the contributions required from Great Britain and the other great Powers, and it was consequently violently objected to by our own Dominions, and it was very largely owing to their pressure that the new basis was adopted.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How many nations have paid nothing at all?

Mr. FISHER: That was answered earlier in the Session.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Has the Irish Free State yet offered to make any contribution?

VOTING POWER.

Sir A. FELL: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the proportion of the money contributions of the different members of the League of Nations is altered, is the voting power of the members to be altered proportionately?

Mr. FISHER: The answer is in the negative.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that those Members who do not pay do not vote?

Sir A. FELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the question of the voting power of the nations should now be remodelled and reconsidered entirely?

Mr. FISHER: That is a matter for the League of Nations to discuss. It is not within my province to decide.

IRELAND.

REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: 33.
asked the Prime Minister if he will take such steps as may be necessary, before the Adjournment on Wednesday, to secure that, in the event of a republic being proclaimed in the 29 counties of Southern Ireland, this House shall not re-assemble on the 26th instant, but on the earliest possible day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a hypothetical question, to which I think it undesirable to give an answer. It is a question as to what might take place—as to a hypothesis which, I hope, will never be realised.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: It is a hypothesis that may materialise. Surely if a republic be declared in these islands, this House ought to assemble at once?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not certain that that follows, but I deprecate having to deal with a hypothesis which, as I have said, I hope will not be realised.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: 34.
asked the Prime Minister if the pledge of the Government not to recognise a republic in Southern Ireland still holds good; and if he can inform the House what instructions have been given to the general officer commanding the troops now stationed in the 29 counties as to the action, if any, he is to take in the event of a republic being proclaimed in Southern Ireland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second part is in part hypothetical, and in part relates to a matter regarding which it is obvious that no public announcement could be made.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Are we to understand from that that the Government mean, in such an event, to take some decisive action, and not to content themselves with useless representations?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If a situation of an extraordinary character arises with great suddenness, the Government must be relied upon to deal with it, and the House will be the judges of the manner in which they do deal with it.

BELFAST GOODS (BOYCOTT).

Viscount CURZON: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the boycott is being intensified against Belfast in spite of the nominal agreement said to have been reached between the Northern and Southern Governments; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter, if any?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that persons in Ireland are endeavouring to re-impose this boycott in defiance of the Provisional Government. I am assured that the Provisional Government have taken and are taking all steps in their power to implement the agreement into which they have entered. I sincerely hope that the efforts of that Government to control the present repudiation of their authority will meet with success; but in present circumstances it is not possible, as I am sure the House will agree, for His Majesty's Government to intervene.

HOP GROWING.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of those concerned in the hop-growing industry; and whether he will, when adjusting settlements with the new Irish Free State, consider the necessity of providing for the continuation of the Hop Control Act of 1920 in both countries, failing which the outlay of capital expended during the past two years will be jeopardised?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. Negotiations have already been opened with the Government of the Irish Free State on the matter.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (DISBAND MENT).

Viscount CURZON: 98.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many ex-Royal Irish Constabulary have been disbanded; how many have left for their homes; how many wish to come to this country; how many have been murdered; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The number of men who have been disbanded
from the regular Royal Irish Constabulary to date is 2,332. It i6 impossible to say how many have returned to their homes in Ireland. Large numbers applied for and obtained travelling warrants to their homes, but it is known that many of them have been deterred by the recent murders from carrying out their intention. 244 men are known to have come to Great Britain and 2,055 more have expressed their intention of going. Four men have been murdered, and one is missing. These figures are exclusive of I men recruited in Great Britain, numbering about 4,400, all of whom have already been disbanded, with the exception of about 100 men of the Transport Division, and another 113 men stationed in Northern Ireland, who will either be disbanded or absorbed in the new Ulster Constabulary. Every encouragement and assistance is given to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are disbanded to proceed to places of safety in Ireland or Great Britain.

Viscount CURZON: Is the disbandment of the remaining members of the Royal Irish Constabulary proceeding, or is it definitely stopped?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is proceeding.

MEXICO.

Major LOWTHER: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cannes Resolutions will be brought official to the notice of the Mexican Government; whether, in the event of that Government's acceptance, recognition will be accorded; and, if not, whether he will explain what is the policy which actuates His Majesty's Government in the question of recognition of foreign Governments?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Cannes Resolutions were specifically restricted to the countries of Europe. There was consequently no occasion to communicate them to Mexico. The rest of the question therefore does not arise.

Major LOWTHER: Does not the hon. Gentleman think, in view of the fact that these Resolutions form a very proper basis for friendly relations between different countries, that it is advisable they should be communicated to the Mexican Government.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Several statements have been made in regard to Mexico lately. These were carefully considered statements and I would rather not add to them at present unless it is absolutely necessary.

Major LOWTHER: I beg to give notice that on the Adjournment of the House for the Easter Recess I shall call attention to this matter.

GENOA CONFERENCE.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether any persons other than the British Delegation to Genoa have taken advantage of the travelling facilities provided; and, if so, how the cost will be met?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I am informed that the wives of a few of the delegates and officials and a few representatives of the Press took advantage of the travelling facilities provided. The total number of these people was 16, and it was arranged in all these cases that the travelling expenses should be recovered from the persons concerned.

FINANCE (HOUSE OF COMMONS CONTROL).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 39.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has yet come to any decision with regard to the setting up of a Committee to investigate the present system of financial control exercised by the House of Commons?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).

Major COHEN: 40.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that there are at present 34,500 disabled men awaiting training; and whether the Government will state definitely what is their exact intention with regard to the future of these men?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. The number of disabled men awaiting training is now about 26,000, many of whom are still under treatment and not yet ready for training. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that at a time
when large numbers of men in the trades concerned are already unemployed it is difficult to find additional vacancies. In each craft we work through Local Technical Advisory Committees, consisting equally of employers and workpeople, and they advise as to the numbers, having regard to the state of employment, which can safely be admitted to training with a reasonable prospect of obtaining employment when trained. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that every effort is being made to place these men in training at the earliest possible time.

SUMMER TIME BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 41.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, having regard to the introduction of summer time this year by Order in Council, it is considered necessary to proceed with the consideration this Session of the Summer Time Bill?

Mr. SHORTT: I have been asked to reply to this question. As the present power of fixing summer time by Order in Council will cease to exist after this summer, it is necessary to proceed with the Summer Time Bill this Session in order to make provision for the future.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter, on the Motion for Adjournment on Wednesday.

TRANSPORT.

UNDERGROUND TRAINS (OVER-CROWDING).

Mr. LYLE: 46.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware that the crowding on the Underground train services of London is as bad as ever: and whether, seeing that the late Minister of Transport expressed his intention of travelling on the line to test the measure of public inconvenience, he will himself now make this experiment to convince himself of the need for immediate improvement in respect of the seating accommodation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I am informed by the Underground Railway Companies that, compared with a year ago, they now have in
service during hours of pressure 33 additional cars, an increase of about 3 per cent., although the traffic has decreased by, approximately, 5 per cent. They are continuing to do all they can within economic limits to prevent overcrowding, and I do not think that the experiment suggested would be helpful.

Mr. LYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of making the experiment suggested in the last part of my question?

Mr. NEAL: That would only add a little to the congestion.

Mr. LYLE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider himself a fair substitute for the late Minister of Transport when the question at issue is one of space in a railway train?

Mr. NEAL: Not in point of size, certainly.

OMNIBUSES (OVER-CROWDING).

Mr. L. LYLE: 47.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether standing in public omnibuses is to be continued; if so, whether he will state the reason why it is not possible to put on adequate vehicles to permit all members of the public to obtain seats for which they have paid; and whether he will see that this concession to the companies, which was a War measure, is now withdrawn?

Mr. SHORTT: I have been asked to answer this question. The whole subject is under consideration, and I am in consultation with all parties interested in the matter.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the suggestion made in this question were carried out, it would result in enormous inconvenience and possible danger to the health of a great number of the inhabitants of London?

Mr. SHORTT: I am aware of that.

TRAMWAY TRACTION, EDINBURGH.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he has received the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the tramway problem in Princes Street, Edinburgh; and, if so, whether he can state the decision that has been reached?

Mr. NEAL: I have received the Report in question and I have decided to adopt the recommendation therein contained, namely, that the request of the Corporation of Edinburgh for permission to put up centre poles to carry the overhead electrical equipment in Princes Street, and to alter the position of the rails on the northern side of the street, should be granted.

Mr. GRAHAM: Is this Report to be published?

Mr. NEAL: If there be any desire for it, certainly.

MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 49.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he proposes to make recommendations that taxes on petrol shall be substituted for the present taxes on motor vehicles?

Mr. NEAL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Basingstoke Division on the 13th February, of which I am sending him a copy. I may add that I propose to ask the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles to consider afresh the whole question of the taxation of mechanically-propelled vehicles, in the light of the experience which has now been gained of the working and incidence of the licence duties imposed by the Finance Act, 1920.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman draw their attention to the growing volume of opinion in favour of this scale?

Mr. NEAL: They will be fully advised on all matters worth considering.

Mr. KILEY: Will the inquiry take place in public?

Mr. NEAL: I shall consider that.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (RATES).

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the average rate per mile for railway carriage of a ton of wheat in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the United States respectively; and will he give the House comparative figures from the same countries, showing the rates per mile for the
railway carriage of small parcels of agricultural produce such as milk, butter eggs, and poultry?

Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to reply. I am not in a position to give comparable figures for Canada, Australia, and the United States, but those relating to the United Kingdom I will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: May I ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, in reference to the latter part of the question, whether he is aware that at present, apart altogether from the question of freight, and arising out of his previous answer, the more milk a farmer produces at this moment, the greater his loss, and that every farmer is compelled at this moment to sell his milk at a loss?

Following are the figures referred to:

The average length of haul by railway and the average receipt per ton per mile for wheat in Great Britain during the four weeks ended 10th October, 1920, were 55 miles and 3.05d. per ton per mile respectively.

The average receipts per journey during 1921 for the traffics named in the second part of the question were as follows:—



d.



Milk
1.67
Per gallon


Butter, cream, eggs and game
.59
Per lb.


Poultry, live and dead
.57
Per lb.

SIBERIA (JAPANESE TROOPS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Memorandum, dated 18th December, issued by M. Kushnariov, envoy plenipotentiary of the Far Eastern Republic at Moscow, containing grave charges against the conduct of the Japanese troops in Siberia, he will make representations to the Japanese Government to withdraw its troops in Siberia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) on 6th March.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has not Japan undertaken, under the terms of the Washington Treaty, to evacuate her troops from Siberia, and has His Majesty's Government any information that these steps are being taken?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, the Japanese Government has given undertakings to evacuate Siberia, but not, I think, within a time limit.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has His Majesty's Government any information as to what steps the Japanese Government has actually taken in this regard?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

FIUME.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 53.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Yugoslavia has appealed to this country for assistance in the preservation of order in Fiume; and whether the Government contemplate taking any steps in the matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Serb-Croat-Slovene Government has drawn attention to the dangerous situation at Fiume, but in terms that have made is unnecessary that His Majesty's Government should take any action. I have reason to hope that the dispute will be settled by direct and friendly negotiations between the Italian and Jugo-Slav Governments, and I consider that any interference on the part of States not directly interested could only do harm.

TREATY OF LONDON, 1839.

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 55.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when and how the Treaty of London of 1839 has been anulled so far as it relates to the Powers which guaranteed Belgium and which have not, since that date, been at war with that country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Of the five guarantor Powers, after excluding Russia and those which have been at war with Belgium, there remain France and Great Britain. These two and Belgium are in
mutual agreement that, in consequence of past events, the treaty establishing the guarantee can no longer be regarded as in force. The guarantor Powers which have been at war with Belgium have agreed under the treaties of Peace to the abrogation of the treaty.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is Germany still a guarantor?

Sir A. FELL: Does the Government still consider that this is a satisfactory arrangement, such an indefinite thing as an understanding being in force instead of a guarantee?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Gentleman knows that other arrangements have been under consideration.

TURKEY AND GREECE.

Sir J. D. REES: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any Report, or whether his attention has been called to any Report, to the effect that the Turkish village of Karatepe, near Aidan, was on 14th February surrounded by a Greek force, partly in and partly without uniform, who are alleged to have collected the inhabitants, including women and children, in a mosque, upon which they are alleged to have opened fire and to which they are alleged to have set fire, and to have looted the village, to which also they are alleged to have set fire, so that only 14 or 15 men and women are alleged to have escaped with their lives out of a population believed to have been not less than 400; and whether adequate steps have been taken at the recent Paris Conference to ensure the protection of the Turks in this region and in other regions in the Near East and to put an end to these massacres?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, per haps it will be convenient that I should put to him a supplementary question, namely [reading] whether he is aware that many of the atrocities alleged against the Greek forces——

Sir H. CRAIK: On a point of Order. Before a question has been put, can another hon. Member rise to put a question?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: And read it!

Sir H. CRAIK: Is not such a thing altogether without precedent?

Mr. SPEAKER: It often happens.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: But not reading it.

Mr. SPEAKER: It often happens that a question on the same subject is asked before the question on the Paper is answered, but it is for me to see whether it is relevant or not.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But is it not understood in this House that no Member shall put a supplementary question and read it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I rather wish it was, but this cannot be described as a supplementary question. Perhaps the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor) will wait until the first answer has been given?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but according to the information of His Majesty's Government, the village was held by a band of about 15 men, believed to have formed part of the following of the noted Turkish brigand, Tekelioglou Ismail, and the Greek irregulars were only able to enter it after about an hour's fighting. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) on 3rd April.

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask, as a supplementary question, whether many of the atrocities alleged against the Greek forces by Kemalist sources have not been proved to be pure fabrications, and whether a letter written by a Turk publishing these charges, on which the question of the hon. Gentleman is founded, does not at the same time avow that the Turks in the interior have also been—I am quoting the letter—"doing nasty things, and now and then infamous things"; and whether it has not come to his knowledge that the Greek authorities in Asia Minor, civil as well as military, have not only prosecuted, but executed Greeks convicted of atrocities against the Turks?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend knows better than most Members of the House how little or how much credence is to be attached to these charges on the one side or the other. In regard to the latter part of the question, I have not the information that he mentions, but I will inquire.

Lord R. CECIL: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this instance, and many other instances of the same kind which are said to occur, make it very urgent that some steps should be taken immediately by the Powers to protect the inhabitants, whether Greeks or Turks?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I share my Noble Friend's anxiety in regard to the situation which has supervened in Asia Minor, and I can assure him that every measure will be taken to meet possible eventualities.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If any evacuation takes place, can we be assured that British officials will be there to see the conditions under which it takes place?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is, I understand, the arrangement that has been proposed.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent and for what length of time His Majesty's Government accepts the obligation of protecting Turk or Christian in this area, either or both?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a Debate.

BUTTER (PRICES).

Mr. LYLE: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the rise in the price of butter and the announcement by the merchants that there is little improvement likely for some weeks: and whether, seeing that the farmers, owing to the price of milk, could easily produce more cheap butter, he will call their attention to the need and advantage of doing so?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am aware that the prices of imported butter have recently risen, but prices of British butter at country markets have on the whole declined, or at least remained stationary. I think I must leave it to the individual farmer to select that method of disposing of his milk which he finds most profitable.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (TAXATION).

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can furnish information as to how the average rate of taxation on agricultural land in Great Britain compares with similar taxation in the British Dominions, the United States, France, and Germany?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I regret that no such information is available; moreover, the nature of the incidence of taxation on agricultural land as such in this country would not permit of a comparison with similar taxation in the countries indicated.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

LAND RECLAMATION.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to recommend the carrying out of works of land reclamation where suitable men who are now unemployed could be given the opportunity of doing some productive work, payment for which would take the place of the present unearned payments?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not clear as to the particular type of reclamation work which the hon. and gallant Member has in view, but the whole question in its relation to the alleviation of unemployment has constantly engaged the attention of my Department. I have been forced to the conclusion that the difficulties, such as, for example, the uneconomic aspect of the work, and the necessity for the construction, in most cases, of special hutted camps, render reclamation less suitable for the purpose in view than the schemes for land drainage now being carried out by unemployed labour under the supervision of my Department.

Mr. ROYCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that private farmers have made application for powers to reclaim land, and that the application involves a reclamation of only half the amount in area of some of the schemes that have been put before his Department, and which he has declined to undertake?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The House decided by a vote taken last autumn that the best plan of relieving unemployment
in country districts was by drainage schemes and water schemes. Those have been carried out successfully, and I do not think that I am at liberty at this stage to consider reclamation.

DRAINAGE SCHEMES.

Mr. SIMM: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how much of the £600,000 voted for providing work for the unemployed on drainage schemes has been used; how many schemes have been approved; and, if the expenditure has been satisfactory, is he prepared to urge the Government to increase the grant and include field drainage, with a view to absorbing more unemployed labour on work of permanent value?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The commitments in respect of the undertakings to which the hon. Member refers are, approximately, £400,000. The number of land drainage schemes approved is 364, and, in addition, up to 1st April, eight water supply schemes had been approved, and several more are under consideration, but these are allowed for in the figure given. A proposal to extend the present facilities to field drainage, by which, I assume, the hon. Member means tile or mole drainage, or other similar work normally carried out in the course of estate management, was recently considered by the Government, but, in view of the fact that the work calls for skilled rather than unskilled labour, and that a large part of the cost goes in material, it was decided that it was not expedient to adopt it as a means of relieving unemployment.

CLEANERS.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: 87.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is advised that cleaners employed by a municipal authority to clean lodging houses carried on by the authority are not employed in a business carried on for the purposes of gain within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and that therefore such cleaners are not insurable against unemployment; whether this decision extends to the employés in other municipal undertakings such as gas and water supply, tramways, electricity, etc.; and, if not, why not?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Cleaners employed by municipal authorities to clean municipal lodging houses are excepted from insurance as being domestic servants not
employed in a trade or business carried on for purposes of gain. As regards the last part of the question, the employés of the undertakings mentioned are, in general, insurable, unless specifically excepted by certificates issued under paragraph (d) of Part II of the First Schedule of the 1920 Act. Authoritative decisions with regard to particular cases may be given by me on application under Section 10 of the Act but, in view of the responsibility placed on me by this Section, I could not undertake to give any such decision without full particulars of the individual case.

Mr. SCOTT: In view of the statement that the cleaners employed in municipal lodging-houses are exempted from insurance, may I ask whether the cleaners employed in ordinary lodging-houses are also exempted?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Speaking offhand, I should say not. Broadly speaking, the municipal institutions are the dividing line, not being run for profit.

Mr. SCOTT: Is road-making carried on municipally carried on for gain or profit or not, and are employés engaged in road-making exempt or not?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is exactly a point where I could not undertake to give an answer off-hand, and without full particulars of the case.

Mr. SCOTT: May I not ask whether all employment of road-making is not similar, and why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a decision as to whether or not it is employment for gain?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, but not offhand.

Mr. SCOTT: Arising out of that——

Mr. SPEAKER: Question 88. [See col. 16.]

HOME-GROWN SUGAR.

Sir A. FELL: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many men were employed during the winter season at the beet-sugar factories at Kelham and Cantley; and how many labourers were employed by the farmers growing beet for the factories?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: From 800 to 900 men were employed during the winter
season at the beet-sugar factories mentioned. As regards the second part of the question, no exact figures are available, but it is estimated that some 800 additional labourers were employed by farmers growing sugar-beet during 1921.

Mr. WISE: Is it a fact that the factory only works for three months in a year?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It works for a short time in the winter months, which, however, is just the time when there is least employment in country districts.

Mr. G. ROBERTS: Is it not a fact that the factory works 24 hours a day and seven days a week during the season, and that if you take that into account the work of the factory approximates to that of ordinary factories?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is so. The sugar factory has to work continuously. Therefore, the amount of labour employed cannot be judged by the actual length of time during which the factory is at work.

MILK.

Mr. DOYLE: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the average wholesale and retail prices paid for milk per quart in England and Wales; and what are the average prices, wholesale and retail, per quart in London and in Newcastle-upon-Tyne?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Conditions naturally vary in different parts of the country, and at the present time prices are unsettled, but wholesale prices of milk delivered to stations at several of the large towns, including London, are about 2d. to 2½d. per quart, while the retail price is in most cases 5d. per quart. I have no information in regard to Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: In view of the serious position in which farmers are to-day with regard to milk, will the right hon. Gentleman allow hon. Members interested in agriculture to attend the deputation which he has been good enough to say he will see to-morrow?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is another question later on that point.

Mr. HURD: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether a serious milk shortage in London and other large centres is threatened by the fact that the prices offered to the farmers by the distributors are below the costs of production; and whether, at the conference which he has summoned for tomorrow, he will invite a full and frank discussion of the costs, both of producer and distributor, and issue a report of the essential facts for the information of the public?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am informed that the actual supply of milk available for retail sale is about equal to that available last month, but, owing to the increased demand consequent on the reduction of price, the supplies are considerably below the demand. This is no doubt due to the restriction of supplies by producers owing to their dissatisfaction with the prices offered to them. It is my intention at the conference between representatives of the producers and of the distributors which I have summoned for to-morrow to invite a full and frank discussion of all the factors in the situation. It is not proposed to publish any report of the discussion, but an agreed statement of any results arrived at will be issued as soon as possible.

Mr. HURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how deeply the public—the consumers—are concerned in this matter, and is it not desirable that the full facts as to costs should be published?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes Sir; the full facts will be published with the results arrived at. But I think the best way to come to an arrangement as regards this most difficult and complicated subject is by a frank and open talk on both sides, and I do not think that that is likely to take place if the whole of the conversation were to be fully reported.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: May I ask if the question I put a few moments ago: Whether he will allow Members of Parliament who are very seriously concerned about this milk question, to attend the conference?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, I could not possibly do that. I have invited six representatives of the distributors and six of the producers to come and meet me
and discuss the matter. I think we had better proceed without other people being present.

Mr. HURD: The suggestion is not that a full report should be made, but that the essential facts should be brought to public notice?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I thought I had made it clear that the essential facts and tiny results arrived at will be published.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the increased cost of production is partly due to summer time?

HOUSING.

FURNISHED COTTAGES.

Sir R. CLOUGH: 79.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to make an inquiry into the alleged profiteering in furnished cottages, with the object of promoting legislation should such be deemed essential?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): This matter was inquired into by Lord Salisbury's Committee, and the Increase of Rent etc. Act of 1920 makes, in Sections 9 and 10, provisions against profiteering in furnished lettings, to which I would refer the hon. Member. I therefore do not think that? there is any need for a further inquiry into the general case.

DURHAM.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 80.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the annual report of Dr. J. Eustace Hill, county medical officer of health for Durham, in which it is stated that in one large urban district of Tyneside there are 28 rooms occupied by 124 people, of whom 22 are suffering from tuberculosis, and that the county of Durham needs at least 50,000 new houses in order to overtake the arrears of normal building and replace houses unfit for human habitation; and whether, in view of these conditions, he will revise his decision to suspend further building schemes under the Housing Acts?

Sir A. MOND: My attention has been drawn to Reports of the Medical Officer of Health of the county in question. Of the houses which local authorities in the area have been authorised to build, over 3,000 are still unfinished, and an additional 1,700 have not yet been commenced. For reasons which have already been fully stated in this House, the Government are not prepared to revise their general decision, but in so far as adjustments will permit of the allocation of further houses, sympathetic consideration will continue to be given to the special circumstances prevailing in the area.

SERVICE FLATS.

Mr. L. MALONE: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent decision in the High Court in the case of Nye v. Davis; whether he is aware that this decision will adversely affect thousands of occupants of London flats who, for the convenience of the owners of the flat, have to receive the services of an employé of the owners for such purposes as carrying up coals, etc; that in many cases owners believing that henceforth their flats are in consequence of these services excluded from the operations of the Rent Restrictions Act, have already threatened to increase rents; and whether he will introduce a Bill amending the Act to protect the occupants of such flats from the effects of the High Court judgment?

Sir A. MOND: My attention has been drawn to the case referred to by the hon. Member, and the matter is receiving consideration.

EGYPT.

Mr. SWAN: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that nine princes of the family of Mohammed Ali have addressed a petition to the King of Egypt asking for the release of Zaghloul Pasha and his colleagues, for the abolition of martial law, and for the freedom of the Press, and declared in this petition that this represented the unanimous demand of the natives, what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any action in regard to the petition.

Sir B. FALLE: Is Mahommed Ali an Egyptian?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I really do not know.

Mr. SWAN: Are we to assume by the hon. Gentleman's reply that we are dictating the policy, and under the recent Treaty of Independence of Egypt it is so reserved that they have not power to bring back the deportees, nor withdraw martial law and Press censorship?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am very sorry I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's question. Perhaps he will put it down?

TRAINING CENTRE, CATTERICK.

Mr. WALTER SMITH: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the allegation that the management of the Voluntary Training Centre at Catterick High Camp is unsatisfactory, and that the land, which covers an area of 14 square miles and is highly agricultural, is being utterly wasted; whether an ex-service schoolmaster has been placed in charge; and whether he will have inquiry made into this matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have been asked to answer this question. I am not aware of any of the matters alleged. The area covered by the Vocational Training Centre is 500 acres only, not 14 square miles, and the officer in charge of the Agricultural Section is a graduate of an agricultural college, with three years' experience of farming and two years' experience of land valuing and surveying.

DOWNING STREET (BARRICADES).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 75.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when it is intended to remove the barricades from the approach to Downing Street and other thoroughfares in Whitehall?

Mr. SHORTT: I have been asked to reply. The proposal to substitute permanent railings having been abandoned for the present in the interests of economy, these temporary barriers will be retained for the time.

PENSIONS (RE-MARRIED WIDOWS).

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): 82.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the decision not to make a compassionate grant to Mrs. Mercer, formerly the widow of Private W. F. Harder, No. 6/12,345, Loyal North Lancashire Regiment, killed in the War, and whose second husband was a pensioner who died from a disability contracted in the Great War; whether he is aware that Mrs. Mercer's sole income is 17s. 6d. per week pension for her first husband's two children; that no pension has been allowed in respect of her second husband and his child; and whether, in view of her circumstances, he will make a grant?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I regret that an award of pension or other grant cannot be made in this case. Pension in respect of the first husband ceased on payment of the usual re-arriage gratuity and, as the second marriage took place after the soldier's discharge, the widow is ineligible for pension or other compensation from the funds of the Ministry.

NATIONAL WAR BONDS.

Mr. MYERS: 91.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Clause 10 of the prospectus circulated through the General Post Office relating to 5 per cent. National War Bonds conveys the intimation to the holders of these bonds that they have the option of converting their holding into 5 per cent. War Loan, 1929–47, upon giving 14 days' notice after any half-yearly interest date, namely, April and October; whether any variation has been made in the provisions of the Clause referred to, and, if so, for what purpose; and whether the holders of the National War Bonds have been made aware that the terms of the prospectus are not now operative?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): No change has been made in the provisions of the prospectus of 5 per cent. National War Bonds, 1922, which remains fully operative. As I stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Wood Green on the 13th March, the latest date on which
notice to convert under the prospectus into 5 per cent. War Loan is the 15th instant.

LONDON-PARIS AIR SERVICE (ACCIDENT).

Mr. RAPER: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement regarding the lamentable accident to the London-Paris passenger aeroplanes on Friday last, and, further, whether in order to reassure the public as to the safety of air travel he will state the total number of casualties which have occurred and the total number of passengers carried since the different London-Paris services were inaugurated?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): I have as yet no information that would enable me to amplify the Press reports of this regrettable accident, which is, I am glad to say, of a kind that is very rare in the air. The British subsidised London-Paris air service carried nearly 6,000 passengers during the year just ended, or nearly 1,100 machine voyages, without a single fatal accident. Comparable figures of French London-Paris air service are, approximately, 1,600 machine voyages, carrying 4,500 passengers.

CIVIL SERVICE (EMPLOYMENT OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

REGISTRATION OF THEATRICAL EMPLOYERS BILL,

"to provide for the registration of employers of theatrical performers; and for purposes incidental thereto, "presented by Mr. BOWERMAN; supported by Mr. Clynes, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. John Jones, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Walter Smith, and Mr. Kennedy; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th April, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

ESTIMATES.

First Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILLS REPORTED.

Babington's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Maguire's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

CROFT'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords] AND MORTON'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with the Documents deposited, in the case of Croft's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Morton's Divorce Bill [Lords]—[Mr. C. D. Murray.]

BABINGTON'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords] AND MAGUIRE'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords],

Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Heading of Babington's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Maguire's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the cases, be returned to the House of Lords.—[Mr. C. D. Murray.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPAR TMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £12,010,604 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,562,844), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and to Special Schemes pursuant to Sections 5 and 18 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as amended by Section 2 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, and Section 2 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921, etc; Contribution to the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Fund; Payments to Associations under Section 17 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and Section 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911; Out-of-Work Donation; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers and of Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and the Training of Women; and Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life, also the Expenses of the Industrial Court"—[Note: £6,000,000 has been voted on account."]

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The sum which Parliament voted last year for the Ministry of Labour was £22,137,405. This year it is asked to vote £18,010,604—£14,447,760 as shown in the main Estimates, plus £3,562,844, the Supplementary Estimate laid last Friday, and rendered necessary by the further emergency provision for unemployment. It would not be right for me to allow the Committee to assume that the difference is all due to administrative economies. If that were so, then indeed, should we be open to the charge of extravagance in the past. The reduction in the Vote is largely due to the reduced requirements of the Services to be met, but it is at the same time due
also to drastic economies on the administrative side which we have felt bound to make in view of the condition of the nation's purse.
The work of the Ministry on its permanent side covers mainly industrial relationships (wages, conciliation, arbitration, the Whitley Councils, and so on), Trade Boards, employment, and unemployment insurance. On its temporary side, it includes the training and resettlement in civil life of ex-service officers and men. A simple analysis of the Supply Votes for which we are asking, together with the Appropriations-in-Aid, will show precisely what we are trying to do, and the public expenditure involved in the effort. The Parliamentary Vote is, as I say, £18,010,604. Appropriations-in-Aid of one sort and another (mainly the charge against the Insurance Fund for administration), together with sums borne on the Votes of other Departments who undertake work for us, bring the gross total at our disposal to £24,873,057.
Let me now analyse the purposes to which that gross sum will be applied: about £5,750,000 for services arising out of the War, mainly the training and resettlement of ex-officers and men: about £12,750,000, the State contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund: nearly £6,500,000 the cost of administering all Ministry of Labour services, temporary and permanent; and of this sum £5,200,000 comes from the Insurance Fund.
A good many people look at the Estimates and say, "Is it not excessive to be spending £6,500,000 in administering £25,000,000? "Let me correct that misconception at once. It has done service quite long enough. To the gross expenditure of round about £25,000,000 already mentioned must be added another £40,000,000 in respect of the contributions of employers and employed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund; though this sum is, of course, not shown in the Estimates, not being a State charge. Therefore, when people talk about £6,500,000 being the cost of administering £25,000,000, what they mean is £6,500,000 is the cost of administering £65,000,000.
Let me go back for a moment to the present net Vote of £18,010,604. That Vote in 1919–20 was £48,300,000. The fall within three years from £48,000,000 to £18,000,000 is a noteworthy fact. It is
due in some degree to continuous economies, it is due in some degree to the accomplishment in part of post-War obligations. But it is due in the main to the fact that what was, immediately after the Armistice, a direct Exchequer charge in the form of Out-of-Work Donation, now finds its counterpart in an Insurance Fund to which there are three contributories, the employers, the employed persons, and the State.
A good many people groaning under the heavy burden of taxation turn to me and say, naturally enough: "How is it that the cost of the Labour Ministry so much exceeds the charge pre-War, when such of the work as was being done was in the hands of departments of the Board of Trade?" Well, let me compare the operations of to-day with the operations of 1913–14. In the first place, the work on behalf of ex-servicemen is, of course, a charge non-existent in 1913–14. In the second place, the operations in connection with Unemployment Insurance are out of all relation to those of 1913–14. The number of persons insured is now 12,000,000, as compared with 2,750,000 in 1913–14. The rate per cent, of unemployment is now 15f per cent., against 3f per cent, among the smaller number of insured persons' in 1913 14. The amount of unemployment benefit paid in the insurance year 1921–22 will be about £67,000,000, as compared with £530,000 in 1913–14.
4.0 P.M
I must ask the Committee to keep these figures clearly in mind. They are eloquent of the burden which this Ministry has to carry. Twelve million of persons insured, over 15 per cent, of them—that is to say, nearly 2,000,000—unemployed: money to the extent of £67,000,000 paid out in one year, all of it in small amounts weekly, totalling 90,000,000 separate payments made over the counters of the Employment Exchanges during the year. It is a stupendous task. That it has been performed during this long and distressing period of unemployment, and performed smoothly, expeditiously, and without breakdown, is a magnificent tribute to the tireless service of the officers of the Department, both at headquarters and in the localities. Let those who dismiss it lightly spend a moment or two considering what we should have done during the hardships of the last 18 months if this
great and signal social service had not been carried out loyally and faithfully day by day.
Let me proceed now to examine the operations under the several Departments into which the Ministry's activities fall. I take, first, the Industrial Relations Department. That Department is charged with a number of functions, all directed to furthering, so far as the Government properly can, the interests of industrial peace. The Report of the Committee on National Expenditure recommended:
That the scope of the Industrial Relations Department should be considered, as also the work of the Trade Boards Division, after receipt of the Report of Lord Cave's Committee, and that their transfer to the Board of Trade should also be considered.
As regards the scope of the Industrial Relations Department, I am a profound believer in people doing their own business. That is particularly applicable to industrial questions. It is certainly the principle which I apply. But there are several other things which have to be taken into account. In the first place, it is not possible for the community to wash its hands entirely of industrial differences. They re-act quickly and often forcibly upon the common weal. As I read my commission, it is that reaction which I am charged to watch. In the second place, there is such a thing as timely advice and assistance quite distinct from interference. And so long as that assistance is based on experience and knowledge, and proffered at the right time and in the right way, it may be of very great value in the avoidance of disputes. Thirdly, this Department is concerned with the establishment and development of a good deal of standing conciliation machinery—joint industrial councils, conciliation boards, and so on. Under the policy inaugurated on the advice of the Whitley Committee, there are at present 68 joint industrial councils and interim industrial reconstruction committees actively functioning. They cover some 3,750,000 workpeople and represent a movement towards amicable discussion and joint settlement of industrial differences which in times like the present we certainly cannot afford to cut adrift. Leaders of industry from other lands who visit our shores pay tribute to the value of our system of conciliation, a system that we have developed to an extent that evokes the admiration of the rest of the world.
Everybody knows that the scope of the original Trade Boards Act of 1909—the Act which we talk of as applied to "sweated industries"—was extended under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) in the year 1918. Down to the fall of 1920, when trade was prosperous, everything went smoothly. But directly depression came upon us, markets began to fall, and unemployment began to develop, then difficulties began to arise; and defects in the Trade Board machinery, which caused little or no comment in a time of prosperity, began to assume more serious proportions. I found myself the recipient of innumerable criticisms of and protests against Trade Board operations. Among other things, my immediate predecessor had given an undertaking to extend the Trade Board machinery to the new field of the distributive trades. In these trades, manifestly, there are special problems which do not arise in the direct production trades, and it was a pity that the application of the Trade Board system to this new field came at a time of considerable and growing depression. In the end I appointed, in October last, a Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Cave, to examine the working and effects of the Trade Boards Acts and to recommend what changes, if any, were required. That Committee has, I understand, concluded its labours, and its Report will be in my hands immediately. While I have not yet seen its findings, I know enough of the painstaking care of the Committee to be able to speak of it in terms of appreciation as a very powerful Committee, which brought to its labours unremitting industry and patience. As regards the suggestion of the Committee on National Expenditure that the Industrial relations Department and the Trade Boards Division might be transferred to the Board of Trade, I am afraid I am not in a position to discuss that proposition on these Estimates.
I turn now to the work of the Ministry in connection with the problem of unemployment. I need not tell the members of the Committee that for the last 18 months we have, all of us, been literally weighed down by the day-by-day anxieties of this distressing problem. Happily, before the slump came upon us, we had widely extended the scope of the Unem-
ployment Insurance Act. We had, in fact, increased the number of persons covered by insurance from 4,000,000 to 12,000,000. But, on the other hand, it was very unfortunate that the newly-insured 8,000,000 workers came into the Act at a moment when unemployment was already bad, with very much worse to follow. As the Committee knows, it was quite out of the question for me to pursue insurance against unemployment exclusively along the lines which had been in operation since 1911.
The permanent insurance principle is that the right to benefit depends on prior payment of contributions. That, of course, still remains the basis of covenanted benefit under our Unemployment Insurance provision. But from the coming into operation of the Act of 1920, an emergency side in the form of un-covenanted benefit or free benefit had to be added. Heavy and increasing unemployment made it impossible for very many of the working people to qualify for benefit by paying contributions. It has been necessary, therefore, to allow un-covenanted benefit without payment of contributions, and to renew the grant again and again, on the understanding and in the faith that when trade again revives those who have drawn this benefit will help to pay it back by their contributions when in work.
Towards the end of last year, the temporary dependants' scheme was introduced, and during the six months from last November, this scheme has supplemented the benefit under the Act by additional allowances for wives and young children. From November, 1920, to the present time, about £80,000,000 has been paid in benefit and grants, and of this sum from three-fourths to four-fifths 'as been paid, or is hereafter to be paid, by employers and employed. The contribution of the State has been about £16,000,000.
As the Committee knows, it has been necessary for us to make further provision to meet the heavy unemployment which, unfortunately, we are bound to expect for some time to come. During the last few days we have been engaged in the passage of a Bill which makes this provision for the period up to July, 1923. To give this further assistance we have been compelled to ask for the continuance of the present high rates of contribution
both from employers and employed. But I am quite confident that they will be cheerfully paid. On the assumption we have made as to the amount of unemployment to be anticipated, we shall be in a position under this Bill to make payments in all, if necessary, to the extent of £60,000,000 in benefit between now and the end of June, 1923, of which the State will find £15,000,000. To do this, we have had to increase the direct charge upon the Exchequer originally contemplated in the main Estimates now before us, and Parliamentary authority is now being asked for that additional charge in the Supplementary Estimate laid last Friday. We have also been compelled to ask for authority to increase the borrowing powers which we already have for Great Britain from £19,000,000 to £30,000,000.
On the problem of the Employment Exchanges, the first conclusion of the Committee on National Expenditure was as follows:
That so long as Unemployment Insurance is on the present basis Employment Exchanges are required as agencies for checking payments of Unemployment Insurance Benefit, not as Labour Exchanges.
Whatever view may be held as to the future of the Exchanges the state of unemployment to-day puts any immediate wholesale recasting of the system out of the question. The numbers now registered at the most heavily pressed Exchanges are very great. In London alone there are 19 Exchanges which each have over 6,000 persons registered as unemployed. I will give the six largest:

The Borough
…
14,673


Canning Town
…
12,444


Clapham Junction
…
12,153


Poplar
…
10,617


Deptford
…
9,804


Camberwell
…
9,693

In the provinces there are 50 Exchanges which each have over 6,000 persons registered as wholly unemployed, 21 of them with over 10,000. Let me read a few of these:

The Birmingham Exchange, 37,657, and, in the same area, Aston, 11,123, and Sparkhill, 13,008.
Sheffield, 29,749, and, in the same area, Attercliffe, 13,026.
Leeds, 16,110.
78
Glasgow, 11,140, and, in the same area, Bridgeton, 12,722, and South Side, 12,605.
Blackburn, 14,490.
Liverpool, 34,880.
Manchester, 20,756, with Openshaw, 14,352.
I wonder whether the Members of the Committee quite appreciate what these figures mean 1 Each of these thousands of individuals at each of these Exchanges has to attend twice a week at least, once for registration and proof of unemployment, once for payment of benefit. These facts emphasise the stupendous character of the task before the Exchanges today. But within the limits imposed upon us by this grave burden, we have done what we can to reduce administrative costs. The Committee on National Expenditure reported that—
From the reports of the Committees which have investigated the working of the Department, and, indeed, from our own examination of the officials, we do not think there is much room for minor administrative economies. Reductions can only be looked for by a modification and simplification of the system consistently with the maintenance of the solvency of the Fund.
In engaging the necessary extra staff at various periods to cope with the situation, I have taken them on a casual or week to week basis, so that their services can be dispensed with immediately the need is past. Taking the figures for Great Britain, the Employment Exchanges had a staff of 9,135, including branch managers in September, 1920, when the slump came upon us, and 21,807 in June, 1921, when unemployment was at its worst. That figure was reduced to 12,451 by October last but as a result of the winter increase in registrations, we have now 14,627. The numbers of the staff respond automatically to the volume of work to be accomplished, the very great amount of additional work being met entirely by the engagement, as I say, of staff on a weekly or "casual" basis. The permanent trained staff of the Employment Exchanges, which was 3,667 in September, 1920, is now 4,170. The numbers of permanent staff are, in fact, even at this date, below the basis appropriate to an average of 3 per cent, of unemployment in insured trades, though we have to deal with 15| per cent. The figures are worth considering for a moment. In September, 1920, again taking Great Britain only,
with 320,000 persons registered as unemployed, I had a permanent staff of 3,667 officers. Today, with 1,638,490 persons registered as unemployed, I have a permanent staff of 4,170 officers. Cannot the Committee see the heavy burden of added responsibility thrown on these permanent officers?

I have also endeavoured to reduce the number of branch employment offices in smaller areas. We have closed 189, and are closing, in the near future, another 17. I have had under close examination with the Postmaster-General, the possibility of using local Post Office premises for Exchange work in smaller centres. I should mislead the Committee if I gave the impression that I think much can be done in this direction. I ought, perhaps, to refer here also to our policy in the matter of Employment Exchange premises. As the Committee knows, nothing in the way of new permanent buildings is being undertaken. Wherever additional accommodation is necessary, I am erecting buts or hiring premises. I am reducing adaptation and repair work to the absolute minimum. The state of the national finances must be my justification to the people who have to attend at, or work in, premises which, if times were better, ought most certainly to be improved.

I have indicated that the Committee on National Expenditure looked to possible modifications in the Unemployment Insurance system itself as the only means of securing further economy. I need not, perhaps, deal at length with this point now, because I referred to it in some detail recently in moving the Second Beading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill. I then described the appointment, on the 23rd January, of an Inter-Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of the Government Actuary, to consider the questions of machinery involved in the Committee on National Expenditure's suggestions. I also informed the House of that Committee's Interim Report—that it would not be possible to bring into use so soon as the beginning, in July, of the next Insurance year, a combined card for Health and Unemployment Insurance purposes. Further, I described the steps which have been taken to obtain the views of those engaged in industry upon the possibility of developing Unemployment Insurance by industries, and I emphasised,
as I must emphasise, that any further devolution of insurance administration upon industries themselves cannot be made until satisfactory provision is made for the debt of the Insurance Fund to be liquidated—a debt which would otherwise fall upon the Exchequer.

I should be failing in my duty and lacking in common gratitude if I left this portion of my subject without again making reference to the services of those whose devotion and enthusiasm have alone made possible the prompt and effective discharge of the arduous duties laid upon the Ministry in the past eighteen months. I have given some figures indicating the great volume of work at particular exchanges. But at every exchange in the country, these many months past, the work has been continuous, heavy, and most exacting. I have had to call for quite exceptional service, rendered often under conditions and in surroundings which added greatly to the difficulties. And the response has exceeded every expectation. But even then the exchange staffs alone could not have dealt anything like so efficiently with the very large numbers of cases, had it not been for the assistance, voluntarily given, of the chairmen and members of the local employment committees attached to the exchanges. These committees have formed an invaluable part of the machinery which has been necessary to deal with the situation. They have worked tirelessly at the administration of the successive Unemployment Insurance Acts, with no incentive save. the public good. I know that hon. Friends of all parties will join with me in paying this tribute to the arduous work both of the local employment committees and of the exchange staffs.

Lastly, I turn to the "Services arising out of the War," for which a gross sum of £5,463,142 is allotted as against £10,655,304 last year. This reduction is in part due to the approaching completion of some of our activities on behalf of ex-service men, and, so far as the industrial training of disabled men is concerned, due to difficulties directly resultant upon the state of trade and industry. For this industrial training the gross amount provided for 1922–23 is £4,691,500 as against £6,620,188 in the Estimates of last year. It has been suggested that this reduction in the amount put forward in the Estimates signifies that we are not pressing forward with all the vigour we might in
this part of our many-sided endeavour to help the ex-service man back to civil life. I want to make it clear at once that any such suggestion is absolutely without foundation. Unfortunately, owing to the incidence of trade depression, we have not been able to train in. the year 1921–22 the number of men whom we originally hoped to train. We work through technical advisory committees in each craft. These are composed of representative employers and workpeople. They look at the state of their industry and advise us as to the numbers which should be admitted with reasonable prospect of employment at the other end. Of course, the greater the depression in their trade, the smaller the numbers recommended for admission. Consequently, although £6,620,188 was provided in the Estimates for last year, the actual expenditure for industrial training for 1921–22 will be under £4,600,000. Our Estimate of £4,691,500 for 1922–23 represents, therefore, no reduction as against last year's expenditure on the training of disabled ex-service men, and no curtailment of our activities in this direction.

Under the industrial training schemes we have trained 63,000 disabled men. We have 23,300 in training. Unfortunately, we have still a waiting list of about 29,000, though many of these, it is true, are still under treatment, and not yet ready for training. The speed with which we can clear that waiting list is, as I have endeavoured to show, necessarily affected very much by trade conditions. The Committee needs no assurance from me that as things take up we shall press our duty in every direction. We all agree that our obligation to these men is one which we must requite to the full and as expeditiously as possible. The position is rather different with regard to the Interrupted Apprenticeships Scheme, the Civil Liabilities Grants, and the Training Grants Scheme for ex-officers and men of similar educational attainments. In these three fields there is a substantial reduction in the Estimates, due to the gradual completion of the work of the Departments concerned and to considerable administrative economies. In the case of the Interrupted Apprenticeships Scheme, the amount provided is £263,161 as against £1,083,700 last year. As the Committee knows, we have assisted a large number of young fit men, whose apprenticeships were interrupted by the War, to complete them under conditions which,
with State assistance, make due allowance for the fact that the boy who went to the War in 1914 returned a grown man. 37,000 apprenticeships have been completed, and the number still being served is 7,600.

The Civil Liabilities Branch, which had paid out, between 1916 and 1920, £10,000,000 in grants to serving officers and men to help them to meet home obligations, was charged, after the Armistice, with administering the "Re-settlement Scheme." It has helped ex-officers and men, who had suffered financial hardship by reason of their service, to re-settle in business. Over 112,000 ex-service men have received grants under this scheme, amounting in all to very nearly £3,500,000. It may be of interest to mention that, notwithstanding trade depression, 80 per cent, of the men appear to be getting on all right. The branch is now concerned very largely with the question of rendering assistance to difficult cases of disabled men. With regard to ex-officers and men of similar educational qualifications, our effort has been two-fold. Professional or commercial training, under the Ministry of Labour or other Departments, has been completed by 29,000 of these men; 18,000 are still in training, and the waiting list is very small—about 30. The Training Grants Scheme, and the Business Training Scheme added towards the end of 1920, are rapidly coming to an end, and there is a consequent large decrease in expenditure. The sum allotted for 1922–23 is £250,381, as against nearly £1,250,000 last year. I may add that the necessary adjustments in staff have been provided for, so that the staff falls as the work diminishes.

The other side of the Appointments Branch work is the duty of rendering assistance to ex-officers desirous of obtaining direct employment. 65,000 have been placed in appointments to date. Unfortunately, however, we have still nearly 14,000 on our books wanting a billet, and billets have been very difficult to find for a long time. The register of 14,000 includes the name of some officers who had received temporary or casual employment for a period, but are now again seeking a more permanent career. We can only peg away at our task and hope that, with an improvement in trade and the continued help of employers and business men generally, the clearing of
this list will proceed very much more rapidly. In the meantime, as a result of the decrease of work on the training grants side, and of constantly reviewing the staffing of the Appointments Branch throughout, we have made such economies as we have judged possible without prejudicing the interests of those we are charged to help. With this governing consideration in mind we have consulted the British Legion at each stage, and we have been very glad indeed of their advice and assistance.

There is one further scheme with which I must deal—the National Scheme for the Employment of Disabled Ex-Service Men, otherwise known as the King's Roll. The Government have set an example themselves, and have pressed local authorities and employers to give the necessary undertaking under the scheme—normally, an undertaking to give places to disabled men to the extent of at least 5 per cent, of the total staff. The number of firms on the King's Roll of Honour has now passed the 30,000 mark, and, I am thankful to say, continues to increase, though not so rapidly as we should like. The number of disabled men employed by firms on the Roll is now 354,000. But for trade depression these figures would have been higher. It is safe to say, on the other hand, that, but for the King's Roll, the number of disabled men unemployed, which is now 20,000 as against 18,000 eighteen months ago, would have increased far more rapidly in the past months of general unemployment.

I want to take this opportunity of repeating that it is especially to public authorities that we can look—and to whom ex-service men do look—for a lead in this matter of the employment of disabled men. As regards the Government, we may fairly claim that that lead has been given. The Treasury is on the Roll on behalf of all Government Departments. My own staff consists, as to over 21 per cent, of its total membership, male, female, permanent, temporary, London and provincial, of disabled ex-service men—not merely 5 per cent., which is what we are asking of others. Further, the rule has been introduced that, save in exceptional circumstances, Government contracts shall only go to firms on the Roll. As regards local authorities, I am far from satisfied. Out of 2,839 in Great Britain, 1,010 are now on the Roll. The
numbers show a continuous increase, but it is slow—far too slow. Practically every local authority in the country ought to be setting an example in its own area in this matter of the employment of disabled ex-service men; and, with great respect, I think it is the duty of every Member of Parliament to ascertain—as so many have already done on more than one occasion—how the local authorities in his Division stand in this matter, and, if necessary, to use a little kindly persuasion to secure the end we all have in view.

I have endeavoured to describe in outline the main activities for which the Committee is asked to grant this sum of £18,010,604. I am under no delusion as to the popularity of the Ministry of Labour in certain quarters at the present time. To many it is a wasteful and ridiculous excess. Some, indeed, expect it, as was well said the other day, to turn out bricks with the mud that is thrown at it. We do not, it is true, take part in the settlement of the affairs of the world; we do not rule the high seas; we do not garrison the frontiers of Empire. But our task, though less arresting in its nature, is most certainly not less important in its character. We administer to the best of our ability a great machine operating throughout the industrial areas of this country with a certainty and regularity which make for peace and good will in the land, and at the same time we try to do something to save those who are out of work from the devastating and deteriorating effects of unemployment. This, and our provision for the training and resettlement of the ex-service man, account for the great bulk of the moneys provided in these Estimates. While we are doing these two things, and doing them to the very utmost limit of the capacity with which we have been endowed, we can speak with the critics in the gate and not be ashamed. I commend these Estimates to the consideration of the Committee.

Mr. W. SMITH: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I am sure that there will be general agreement in the Committee that we should all have wished that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to present to us a more pleasant picture and a more prosperous state of things in the country
than is reflected in the numbers that are now besieging the Employment Exchanges in the way that he has described. None of us can feel satisfied in visualising the condition of things which those numbers would indicate, and we should all welcome a change of conditions which would enable many of these people again to find employment and earn their own livelihood. I notice, however, in the Estimate, that the amount of money that is allocated to the training of ex-service men in the building trades is very substantially reduced as compared with last year. Last year it was £600,000, and this year it is only £5,000. I rather gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that that is largely due to the fact that there is not now the opportunity of placing these men.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I was speaking of disabled men, but that is not for disabled men; it is for fit men.

Mr. SMITH: I should like to put the point as to whether or not we are to take it from this to be the fact that there is in the building trades now a surplus of men so that there is not the necessity for training a further number of men.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I was dealing with the matter from the point of view of disabled men. That is an entirely different thing; that is for fit men. The two things are very different.

Mr. SMITH: Still, this item shows such a remarkable variation as between the two periods that I think one is entitled to ask for some information and explanation. One can only assume that it is possibly due to the existence at the present time of a surplus of labour in the building trade. If that be true, and if that be the reason why these men are not being trained, one cannot help thinking that it is a great pity that another Department of the Government should have curtailed its operations in the erection of houses and in the meeting of a great public necessity in that direction, and should have thereby intensified the problem of unemployment, instead of absorbing this labour and reducing the burdens and the difficulties of the Department with which the right hon. Gentleman is associated. Certainly we on this side have, always advocated and argued that the best and proper
way of treating the problem of unemployment is to endeavour to find work for those who are unemployed, and, if this figure indicates that there is now a surplus of labour, I think we are entitled to draw attention to that fact from the standpoint of the housing policy being pressed, in order that these men may be taken off the unemployed list. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to transference of powers, I think that many of us would be with him in his argument that it is best to leave to the Ministry of Labour the function of dealing with industrial disputes in so far as a State Department has any bearing upon these questions. There is no doubt that industrial differences are big public questions on many occasions, and I think it is just as well that any public Department that has to deal with these matters should be a separate Department, with its own staff, qualified to render what assistance is possible in order to ease the situation when it arises.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the criticism that has been passed on Trade Boards, and I could not help thinking that to some extent hs Department—I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman is responsible but I suppose we must hold him responsible for these matters—I do not snow how far he himself has been responsible for the fact that criticism has been levelled against that Department, by the action that he himself has taken on one or two occasions. Personally, we on this side are hoping that the Trade Boads will be continued. We believe that treir establishment has been greatly for he public good, and we believe that the decisions that have been given from tire to time affecting what are known as "sweated" industries have been extremer helpful, and have been the means of considerably modifying some of the words industrial conditions in many industry in this country. The point, however, on which we desire to draw attention at the moment is with regard to the action on the Ministry so far as the Grocery Trade Board is concerned, and I think that one is entitled to ask for some explanation of the conduct of the Ministry in regard to that trade. The Grocery Trade Board was established by the present Minister in June, 1920. Evidently she right hon. Gentleman was formerly of opinion that
the Trade Board was necessary, otherwise he would not have brought it into being. This Trade Board has met on many occasions, it has spent nearly two years deliberating on matters submitted to it, has considered a large number of objections raised to its proposals and has submitted rates to the Minister which he has referred back to them on no less than three occasions, and then he has, in the end, as I understand it, refused to register the decision of the Board. I understand his explanation of his refusal to register or put into operation the decision of the Grocery Trade Board is that the distributive trade is a new field of wage regulations. It is rather strange that the right hon. Gentleman did not have that in mind when he constituted the Trade Board. The industry has not changed during the two years: the special circumstances or conditions attaching to the distributive trade were just the same, apparently, in 1920 as in 1922. Then he states that there were objections to the rates fixed by the Board; but surely that is nothing different from what has obtained n regard to most of the rates fixed by other Trade Boards.
I am certain that any rate proposed by any Trade Board will provoke objection from some individuals. A Trade Board is an organisation that, as far as possible, represents the best elements of the industry, and naturally those who seek to evade what may be considered just responsibilities will raise objections to any rates emanating from a Trade Board. But why could a special exception be made in he case of the Grocery Trade Board? the Minister is inviting criticism of a very deadly character when he first sets up a Trade Board to deal with an industry, and, after it has held numerous meetings, issued its proposals, met objections, and fixed a rate, finally refuses to accept the rate fixed. My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) passed some very strong criticisms upon the Ministry of Labour when the Unemployed Insurance Bill was under consideration on Thursday, and I cannot help thinking criticisms of that kind are fully justified when we find a Department acting in this manner. I know it will be urged, as it has been urged, that one of the difficulties of the Minister is that he is understaffed. To-day he has given us figures which indicate that, in proportion
to the numbers registered at Exchanges now, the staff is considerably smaller than when the numbers were in the 300,000 area. But surely it takes as much labour to keep referring these decisions back, and refusing to register them, as it would to accept them and put them into operation. There were 14 meetings of this Trade Board, and that means that there must be a staff to make the necessary arrangements, the expenses of the meetings are being incurred, and the correspondence must be as great when you are referring back rates, and finally refusing them, as it would be if the Ministry treated this Board as it has treated most others, and accepted its rates. Therefore, to us, it seems that the criticism that the Department has not utilised its opportunities to the best advantage is, to a very large extent, justified.
It has been suggested that the appointment of the Cave Committee is another reason why this decision was not accepted. Why is one Board specially selected? Why is one Board held up in its functions while other Boards are allowed to continue to make modifications in rates by raising or lowering them? Why is this one to continue to pretend to be acting and then find, in the last resort, that the Minister refuses to do anything to bring into operation the result of its deliberation? The regulations prescribe that the Order shall be made within one month after the rate has been submitted, unless objection has been taken, and yet we continually find happening what happened in the case of the Boot and Floor Polish Trade Board, where they fixed the rates on 10th January and made a request that they should become operative as from the 24th, and nothing was heard of them. Two months went by and then a deputation had to wait upon the right hon. Gentleman before he would give effect to the decision of that Trade Board. One cannot help thinking the Minister has been intimidated too much by what might be called political agitations, and that he has hesitated to use his full powers in connection with some of these Trade Boards for fear of criticism coming from that particular quarter. I do not think that is fair to the industries concerned. It is not fair, or right, or proper to get employers of labour and representatives of workpeople to be continually meeting and deliberating on these matters, fully
assuming that they will be treated as other people have been, and then finding, merely because of some more or less political agitation, that they are unable to see the final result of their work in the establishment of a rate. I hope, therefore, the Minister will give us some reason why this action has been allowed, and an assurance that so long as Trade Boards are an acknowledged part of the machinery for dealing with difficulties in the industrial world this Department will not put obstacles in their path.
There is a wider aspect of the case which is, perhaps, worth a word or two in passing. Reference has been made on many occasions as to whether the authority of Parliament is now accepted in the full sense that it was some years ago, and all these occurrences have a tendency to weaken the authority of Parliament and the respect paid to it, when people who are taking part in the promotion of legislation that is to give them help and assistance find that governments are acting in a fashion which has the effect of withholding from them the rights and privileges which they had expected. We are also entitled to ask for some explanation as to why the Department is so lax in enforcing the decisions of these Trade Boards. I have here one particular case, which is well known as the Brewery case of Redruth, in Cornwall. The Trade Board had petitioned the Ministry to take action in regard to a firm that was violating the decision of the Board—and here one is entitled to emphasise the unfairness of the Department in acting in this way. A Trade Board, once it has fixed a rate of wages, is placing at a great disadvantage those employers of labour who wish to meet their obligations and fully carry out the decisions of the Board. The position of these firms is being considerably jeopardised, and the whole principle of the right to a decent wage for a given amount of labour is being placed in jeopardy by the Department withholding its hand in dealing with delinquents who refuse to carry out the decision of the Trade Board. We do not usually get from magisterial benches, especially in more or less rural areas, comments very favourable to decent labour conditions, but here was a bench of magistrates who felt compelled, in giving their decision and refusing to grant costs, to give as their reason that the Ministry had refused to put the law
into motion for 14 months after their attention had been drawn to this case. The arrears of wages had reached, I think, something like £1,400, that sum of money being due to the workpeople for back pay that had been withheld from them. Not only is this unfair to the workpeople, but it is manifestly unfair to other employers of labour, who are honourably carrying out the decisions of the Boards, to find come of their competitors escaping their obligations in this way.
5.0 P.M.
I want to touch one other question, that of the unemployed women. Up to this year there have been schemes in operation for the training of unemployed women so as to admit them to other industries. In this year's Estimates, for some reason, I see nothing is provided. Last year just over £100,000 was provided. I would like to know the reason for this change of policy. Women who are unemployed really need special consideration in this respect, because at the moment they are entirely limited to the benefit payable under the Unemployed Workmen Act. Extensive schemes of relief work have been put forward, including road making and various works undertaken by local authorities, towards which the Government have made grants of money amounting in all, I think, to over £5,000,000, but not one penny of that money and not one single scheme of relief has been of any assistance to women who are unemployed. For years they spent their lives in connection with industry of a character that has now become more or less obsolete. Take the case of those women whose only chance a employment since they left school lay in industries which were operating under war conditions. Unless they now have a chance of being trained for employment in other industries their opportunity for gaining a livelihood is very remote, indeed. We ought to be told why these schemes of training have been withheld, and these women left more or less to their own resources. I know there is a great deal said sometimes about women going into domestic service, but they cannot be expected to go even into domestic service if they have spent their lives in industry generally, unless they have some particular form of training to qualify them for that service. It is to be regretted that the women who have been helped in this particular way now find themselves stranded, and it is
just as well to remember that many of these women have only their 12s. unemployment insurance benefit to depend upon. A deputation waited on the right hon. Gentleman recently and he was informed that some of the women receiving 12s. unemployment insurance benefit had to pay as much as 10s. for their lodging without any provision for food. Women placed in these circumstances are entitled to ask for some special consideration to be given to them. The Committee will be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman, how and why these schemes of training have been stopped, and why these women are left in a position which is not very hopeful, and certainly to many of them a position of very great difficulty.
There is another point I would like to raise in regard to a matter which was touched upon at Question Time, namely, office cleaners and laundresses employed by local authorities. They were originally placed within the Act, they were contributing and were receiving benefit, but by a decision of the High Court they have now been left out of the Act. One is entitled to put the question to the Minister whether, under the powers he possesses, it would not be advisable for him to bring them again within the scope of unemployment insurance. Theirs it not a permanent employment Again, there is the difficulty of women changing their occupation. To-day a women may be working at some task Which brings her within the Act, and next week she may be in an occupation which takes her outside of it, and so she may find herself, under normal circumstances, contributing to a fund from which, because of a change of occupation, she may be prevented from participating in the benefit. Having regard to the fact that these laundresses and office cleaners were originally entitled to come within the scope of the Act, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us any assurance whether, by the powers he possesses, he will bring them back again within its scope?
One further point I would like, to put with regard to the extension of the benefit. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to issue the same rule for the six weeks' extension under
the new Act? I gather that there is much dissatisfaction on this ground. One man does not come within the benefit, while a man who may be a grade or two below would be considered entitled to it. That is a very irritating matter. Those people who may be denied the benefit of the six weeks' extension will be called upon to participate in the contributions necessary to wipe out the deficiency in years to come. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists in regard to the conditions of paying out this particular benefit, and we would like to ask that this Regulation may if possible be modified to a certain extent to remove the grievances many of these people are suffering from.
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken to-day of how crowded many of the exchanges are owing to the number of applicants who have registered there, and he told us on Thursday that he proposed making some alteration in the amount of money which is paid to trade unions for administration of the Act. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that, in my judgment, as a member of an executive of a very large union that has to administer this act, and as knowing the labour involved on the part of the union officials in paying out the benefits if this reduction in allowance be made, the chances are that the overcrowding in the exchanges will be intensified owing to the fact that the trade unions will not be able to administer the Act to the same extent under the new proposals put forward. One is entitled to say that the Ministry would never have been able to manage their work with the premises that they have engaged in many areas, and that the overcrowding would have been greatly intensified in certain parts, but for the fact that the trade unions took the responsibility of paying out the benefits. The Ministry may be the loser if, by a too drastic reduction in the amount allowed for administration, they make it impossible for the trade unions to carry out the work, and throw all the work on the Exchanges themselves. It may mean the engaging of extra staffs and larger premises, and possibly will not meet with that smooth working which has followed the administration of the Act by the trade unions who have taken over these responsibilities. These questions I have desired to put to the Minister, and I hope, before the Debate
is finished, we shall receive some assurance from him in regard to these matters that something will be done to remove the grievances which hive been indicated. We do think his Department has been very lax and remiss in regard to certain Trade Boards, in not registering their decisions and in not following up their awards when made. We further urge upon him the question of those women who are now outside the Act, and the advisability of giving them the advantage of the Act, and we would like some assurance with regard to the schemes of training women to give them an opportunity of changing from one industry to another, because, notwithstanding how bad things may be in the labour market, there is always soma chance of employment being found for a person who possesses the qualifications needed. If women only had some slight training and skill in that direction, they might find employment and be able to earn a livelihood. In order that we may have some answer on these points, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry the Labour party have insisted upon taking this Vote to-day, because this Committee ought to know that the Committee which was set up to examine the Estimates have actually passed their Report this afternoon. Notwithstanding that, the Labour party insisted on taking this Vote to-day. The Estimates Committee was set up with the general concurrence and approval of the House, and it will be greatly regretted that the Labour party have not assisted in furthering the work of the Committee, and in making it an efficient body. I only hope that the Minister will see that there will be another opportunity for discussing this Vote when the Report of the Estimates Committee is before the House. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down apparently seems to be desirous of spending more money, because everything he suggested was in the direction of further expenditure. Whether that is the reason why the Labour party do not wish the Report of the Estimates Committee—which was set up to save money, and not spend money—to be presented, I do not know. I think the Labour party would be assisting the work of the Committee if they would consult as to the Estimates which are to be taken. As the Committee knows, the Estimates are put down at the request
of the Opposition. There a now unfortunately two Oppositions, and it makes it difficult to arrange, as in the old days, when the Votes are to be then, but I would earnestly trust that le Labour party in the future will give some consideration to the proceedings on the Estimates, and that the Liberal party will do the same. I do not know whether, in view of the fact that our Report will be out in 3 or 4 days, it is necessary for me to say very much, but the gist of the Report will be found to show hat in our opinion there are certain cases where money could be saved, and hope the House will give us an opportunity of further considering this matter.

Mr. G. ROBERTS: I am save we would all have preferred to have has the Report of the Estimates Committee in our possession, because we could have seen whether economies could be effected rid whether they were justifiable. Of course, the Government have had no hand in this. This is the work of the Opposition, and I join with the hon. Barone the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbuy) in saying it would have made for the convenience of the House if we had had the Report of the Committee before us. But I am naturally interested when my right hon. Friend makes his annual statement. More particularly am I interested on this occasion, because of the report of the Geddes Committee. Like bin, I feel that this House and the Committee have not shown a real appreciation of the; stupendous work performed by the Ministry of Labour. I know there are a number of Members of this House who desire to see the Ministry of Labour and the Employment Exchanges abolished. I do not question the honesty of their motives; that is not any part of my policy, but I do venture to say that, had we not had the services of this Ministry and of the Employment Exchanges, I doubt whether the Government could have passed through the last few years with such little trouble as they have experienced. I am of opinion that the Ministry of Labour and the Employment Exchange system must remain a permanent part of our organisation of national labour.
The Ministry came into existence during a period of exceptional national trouble, and yet it has risen supreme to all difficulties, and I think that the statement made by the Minister of Labour—I regret
that there was not a full House to hear it—constitutes a full justification for those who urged the establishment of the Ministry of Labour, and for the Government for æeding to that request. But those of us who pressed upon the Government the necessity for creating a Ministry of Labour were not concerned merely to involve the State in additional expenditure, and to-day we are prepared to co-operate with any party who can suggest economies which will not diminish the efficiency or usefulness of the Ministry. The Minister alluded first to that very useful Department of industrial relations For many years we have experienced the need of such a Department. It is not the business of that Department or of my right ha. Friend to intervene in industrial disutes, but to exercise watchfulness over current happenings and, whenever industrial conflict is likely to occur, to offer advice, to render assistance to either party in order to obviate an outbreak for as we find to-day more and more, in our experience in international affairs, that the interests of one nation are dependent upon those of others, so you cannot have a dispute in one industry, but its effects are far flung and are felt h nearly every working-class home in the community. Therefore, a strong case does exist for the retention of a Department of this sort. I hope that nothing will be done to diminish its power or its usefulness. It has justified itself and constitutes an essential part of the organisation for maintaining industrial peace in the community.
From this Department grows that very interesting relation, the scheme of joint industrial councils, and I am very glad to learn from my right hon. Friend that this scheme is progressing slowly, I am afraid, but still, I hope, soundly. Those who so strongly resent what they call bureaucratic interference with industry ought to give every encouragement to this scheme. It is the application of self-government to industry. It says to employers and employed, "We recognise that you are far more competent than any Government Department to regulate the affairs of your own industry. Go ahead and do so, and we will render you assistance when you have proved your competence and willingness. We will simply stand aside and watch your pro-
gress, only coming to your aid whenever you ask us." I am hoping that these schemes will develop. They are representative equally of employers and employed. Having seen some of them in operation, I know that they do good in a manner which perhaps we cannot quite conceive. The mere fact of getting the two sides to meet together removes suspicion and creates better relationship, and, whatever may be said on public platforms by propagandists, those who have had experience of the working of joint industrial councils very often assure us that the other side is just as concerned as themselves to do the right thing and insure that the wheels of industry shall not be stopped.
I was greatly interested the other day to have my attention directed to a Bill passed through this House, so far back as 1800, dealing with disputes in the cotton industry. The Act provided for arbitration, in the event of a difference in the trade, one arbitrator to be appointed by each side, and, in the event of these two persons being unable to agree, they were to submit the points upon which they could not agree to a Justice of the Peace. That strikes me as being rather a crude method. I am afraid that it would be too heavy and too complex a task to devolve upon a Justice of the Peace to-day. The only point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House is that so far back as 1800 responsible leaders of industry recognised the necessity for some machinery being provided which would bring them together in an atmosphere of friendliness and insure that the points in dispute should be adjudicated upon before they resorted to what is a form of force, i.e., either a strike or a lock-out
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. W. Smith) directed attention to the Trade Boards Department. It is true, as the Minister of Labour stated in his speech, that I am in large measure responsible for extending the principle of Trade Boards beyond what were previously called "the sweated trades." We recognised how beneficent the first Trade Boards were, and it was with the general concurrence of the House that a wide extension was made. Trade Boards are just as necessary to-day as when that Act was passed. In the present state of industrial depression and upheaval, the
case for Trade Boards is perhaps even more imperative than it was at that time. Therefore I am with those who regret that there should be any delay in setting up Trade Boards or giving effect to the decisions of any Board that is already working. I, like my hon. Friend, have been in communication with the Minister of Labour respecting the delay in reference to the Grocery Trade Board. Having been inside, I am conscious of the difficulties which beset my right hon. Friend. Therefore, if my criticism is never so caustic as it was in the old days, it is because I have developed a responsibility and therefore a sympathy with those who have to undertake these great tasks. I realise that the Minister must be careful to hold the balance evenly between the two parties. If he leans to either side, he immediately arouses suspicion and makes it impossible for his Department ever to do any effective work. But I urge my right hon. Friend to go ahead.
I am not going to suggest that he has arrested progress because of political consideration. From what I have seen, I believe that greater political support will ensue as a result of stimulating the creation and operation of Trade Boards. Therefore I cannot think that merely political considerations have swayed him in this matter, though he may have felt—in fact, he has hinted it in the House—that the setting up of this Committee, presided over by Lord Cave, constitutes some reason why he must proceed slowly. I do not know what their Report will be, but I am sure that an inquiry of this character by men of such standing and capacity will reveal to the country that the Trade Boards are an essential part of the organisation of industry in this country, and while they may suggest improvements, as I believe improvements are necessary, I believe that in the Debates which took place on the Bill, which it was my privilege to pilot through the House, I stated that the last word had not been said, that we were still groping about for experience, and there was a great deal of inelasticity about the old scheme, and I trust that the results of the inquiry will be that we shall get some recommendation which will increase the usefulness of Trade Boards. While I believe that Trade Boards will endure for a long time, I have never regarded them as permanent bodies. I have always
viewed them as affording a means whereby a depressed trade, a badly-paid number of workmen, shall be lifted on to a plane on which they shall be secured a fair wage and reasonable conditions which will allow them freedom, opportunity, and a means of working out their own salvation, building up their own organisation, developing it into a joint industrial council, and taking their stand among the best organised trades in the country. That has been my attitude respecting Trade Boards, and I think that it is the proper one.
Even while I was Minister of Labour the Employment Exchanges were subjected to a great deal of criticism. I made it my business, as my right hon. Friend has done, to investigate these statements, and I join with him in saying that no Department of State, or no local authority, or no private firm, has ever had at its disposal a more capable or devoted body of servants. Realise the burden that has been thrust upon them. During the War we called upon them to help to arrange the mobilisation of national labour. Many duties were thrust upon them almost at a moment's notice, and we had to expand their machinery. As soon as their task was performed we embarked on reducing their staff to bring them down to the volume of work which was to be performed. Then demobilisation came. I suppose that such a task was never thrust upon any Government Department in this or any other country, and yet how efficiently it was discharged. And so it is in dealing with the unemployed question. I know that the Employment Exchanges do not make employment. That is not possible, but you must have some means of bringing together unemployed workers and employers needing labour. Some of my friends say that the trade unions could do it. Some of the trade unions do it very well, but they do not cover the ground comprehensively, and trade unions would be well advised to dovetail themselves a little more closely into the Employment Exchange system. I know that there is a great deal of overlapping, but the Employment Exchange system is essential, and it is the business of the trade unions of the country to see that its usefulness is made manifest by their making the best possible use of its machinery to their own advantage.
The Geddes Committee recommended the abolition of the Employment Exchanges. For a moment let us ask ourselves whether either side, labour or the employer, is sufficiently well organised to undertake the work now done by the Employment Exchanges. To say that some employers have no use for the Exchanges is no reply to the question. I say that neither of them is in the position to take this duty from the State and to perform it to perfect satisfaction. We know how the membership of trade unions has fluctuated. Three years ago trade unions were wonderfully well organised and in a higher state of proficiency than ever before, but during recent depression many thousands of men have fallen away from their trade unions, not because they are less trade union in principle, but because of the failure of their resources. What would have happened had no Exchanges existed I do not know.

Sir F. BANBURY: It would have made no difference.

Mr. ROBERTS: I respectfully differ from the right hon. Baronet. I have every regard for his opinion, but I am sure that you cannot administer the huge unemployment insurance scheme without the Employment Exchanges. We have recognised that insurance is one of the methods for dealing with the unemployment question. I notice that certain proposals are being made. There is the proposal to incorporate unemployment insurance with health insurance.

The CHAIRMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that that could be done without legislation?

Mr. ROBERTS: I understood so.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Minister of Labour would tell us?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand my right hon. Friend proposed to deal with the question of having only one card. Offhand, I should say that that is purely an administrative matter which would be in my keeping, with the Ministry of Health.

Mr. ROBERTS: I will not pursue the subject if there is any doubt about it.

The CHAIRMAN: If the matter is confined to the use of the card, it would certainly be in order to refer to it.

Mr. ROBERTS: There are great difficulties in the way of the amalgamation proposal. Two years ago, in dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Bill, we had the case of the friendly societies before us. They asked to be admitted into the administration of unemployment insurance. A strong case was urged against them. If you are to make one card applicable to the two schemes you must bring the friendly societies and the assurance and collecting societies into the unemployment insurance scheme. If you do that, Labour opinion will be very strongly against you, because Labour has never acknowledged that friendly societies or collecting societies have the necessary knowledge or experience for "placing" labour. I see that the Geddes Committee recommended that insurance by industries should be encouraged. I have always felt that that is a very attractive proposal. When I was at the Ministry of Labour, and subsequently, I gave a great deal of consideration to suggestions which had been made, but the difficulty of defining and delimiting industries is one that, so far, I have been unable to solve. I am sure there are many other questions. Is the State to make a contribution? If so, what measures are you to devise in order to ensure that the State contribution is not diverted from its proper purpose?

The CHAIRMAN: Would not that clearly require legislation?

Mr. ROBERTS: I think the Minister of Labour has the power within his Department to give encouragement to special schemes under Clause 18. It was not my intention to go beyond that provision. My right hon. Friend has that power. The idea is very attractive to me. I am sure that the more we bring the two parties together, the better will be the prospect of peace and harmony in industry. I would like to see some authoritative investigation carried out and some schemes put into operation. That would give us far better guidance than any amount of talk about insurance by industries. I congratulate the Minister of Labour on the statement he has made. I hope that, despite the depression, he will continue his efforts to find work for the
disabled men who have been trained in our various factories. In my own constituency there is a factory, and I am pressed on many hands to find employment for these men. I sympathise with my right hon. Friend. I hope that his Ministry may be so successful that we may very shortly see a real peace in industry and all classes working to restore the country, for thereby only will the great problem of unemployment be solved.

Captain BOWYER: Neither the last speaker nor the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. W. Smith) dealt with one part of the activities of the Ministry. They will forgive me, therefore, if I branch off to a consideration of those activities, which are of a temporary character and which deal particularly with ex-service men. I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Wellingborough did not mention this work, because I thought that the Opposition had selected these Estimates to-day in order that they might discuss the Appointments Department, especially in its relation to ex-service men. Either this morning or late on Saturday I, in common with every other Member of the House, received a letter signed by the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson), urging me to support him in begging the Minister of Labour not to jeopardise the Appointments Department and the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department, because both were urgently needed by ex-service men. The right hon. Member for Widnes is not present, and the spokesman for the Labour party has not mentioned the subject.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: It will be dealt with later.

Captain BOWYER: On every occasion that the Ministry of Labour Vote has been before the Committee, I have been active on behalf of these two Departments. I claim that this matter should be dealt with irrespective of party. Do not let us make a party question of it. If we are all agreed that we must help the ex-service man, we can be certain of the result. The policy of the Ministry with reference to the Appointments Department is still not clear. At intervals of three months recently I have put questions as to the activities of these two Departments. Only last November
I learned of the enormous number of cases with which the Appointments Department was dealing. In November last the Minister said:
So long as our obligation to the ex-service man remains unrequited we shall require machinery in order that it may be accomplished, but, again, of course, the expenditure upon official machinery must depend upon the volume of work to be accomplished. … I cannot say at the present time when it may be possible, in view of the interests involved, to dispense altogether with the machinery of the Appointments Branch or the Civil Liabilities Branch.
As to the Re-settlement Scheme, the Minister of Labour said:
The number of applications received by the Civil Liabilities Department from ex-service men under the Re-settlement Scheme, up to 31st October, 1921, is 282,239, and grants have been made since the Armistice in over 100,000 cases, amounting to three and a quarter millions of money. There are at present 5,000 and more cases under consideration.
In view of those figures and facts I was a little alarmed at the words the Minister of Labour used this afternoon when he talked of the approaching completion of part of the activities of the Ministry of Labour, and later on I thought I heard him repeat that and apply his words to the Appointments Department and the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department. I hope we may be re-assured that so long as there is an urgent need for those two Departments, so long as ex-service men are suffering from the terrible slump in trade and the lack of employment, the two Departments will not, from a false sense of economy, either be cut down or abolished. It would be a common-sense and sound policy, when considering the future of these Departments, to carry them on under the same personnel as that which has been dealing with them for the last two or three years. I am afraid that some such scheme as has been foreshadowed by the Minister in answer to questions may be put into operation and these two Departments handed over to the permanent Departments of his Ministry. If so, I presume the head officials in charge of them would be the heads of the permanent Departments, and not those who during all this time have been dealing with the ex-service men and who are therefore fully conscious of the needs and the difficulties of the cases arising. May I sup-
port my plea to the Minister by reminding him of some of his own figures, as regards training. I quite agree that if there is trade depression it makes infinitely more difficult the finding of positions for the men who are trained. The Minister told us there were 63,000 men who had been trained. I would like to ask, for how many of these men have jobs been found? The right hon. Gentleman told us that 23,000 were actually in training at the moment and 29,000 were on the waiting list. If 29,000 ex-service men are waiting to be trained how are we going to find them employment when they have been trained? Doubtless my right hon. Friend will say that he chiefly depends on the Employment Exchanges, and I think—in fact, I am sure—he has appointed what he calls canvassers to go round and seek for jobs for these men. If we have an Appointments Branch part of whose work is to find employment for these officers and men, why should it not be used to find work for the trainees who have not yet got jobs? Why not let the Appointments Branch help to find work for the 23,000 men at present in training and the 29,000 on the waiting list, whose training has not yet started? As regards the Civil Liabilities Department, I think the Minister said that 112,000 men had received grants, and eighty per cent, were succeeding. Every member of the Committee received those figures with feelings of encouragement, and we offer our congratulations to the Minister and his Department upon them. Not very long ago the Minister, in a reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), ended up with these words:
Further, any ex-service man, other than a regular soldier, who has been trained under the industrial training scheme and who, on the expiration of his course, is unable to find employment may apply, subject to certain conditions, to the Military Service Civil Liabilities Department for assistance to set him up in the trade for which he has been trained.
The Minister will agree that there are many thousands of men who may wish to avail themselves of this Department.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the hon. and gallant Member heard me say that that particular Department was at this moment dealing with typical cases.

Captain BOWYER: I was coming to that, but I was trying to explain in my
own mind how it was that the Minister in one part of his speech laid stress on the importance of this Department, and yet in his opening remarks used the words
approaching completion of part of the activities of his Ministry.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Part of the activities.

Captain BOWYER: Later on, the right hon. Gentleman actually applied those words and gave the Committee to understand—as I fear—that the Military Service Civil Liabilities Department may in the near future be shut up or at least given over to other hands. Apart from that, it is not quite generally realised that every wounded soldier at present in hospital, and there are several thousands of them, has the right, not only now but within three months of coming out of hospital, to apply to the Department. That stresses my point that there is still a great need in the eyes of the ex-service men for this Department. In regard to this vital question the Minister has very properly consulted the British Legion. Has he consulted the British Legion regarding his future policy with respect to these Departments, namely, the Appointments Branch and the Civil Liabilities Department? May we take it that whatever he does on the question of policy with respect to ex-service men in connection with these Departments will be with the sanction or with the knowledge of the British Legion?

Dr. MACNAMARA: At every stage I have consulted with, and taken the advice of, the British Legion in regard to the Appointments Branch, and I am endeavouring to act on the administrative side without prejudice to the interests which we all have at heart. So far I think I may say I have carried them with me. There may be a time when they may dissent, but that has not arisen yet. I have not consulted them with regard to the Military Service Civil Liabilities Department. That does not appear to me to be necessary. I think I have already said enough to remove my hon. and gallant Friend's anxiety. So long as that machinery is needed to carry out our honourable engagements, so far as I am concerned, it will be there.

Captain BOWYER: I am much reassured by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I find on looking into the figures that the "cut" in this respect
has been phenomenal and amazing. In regard to the headquarters in London there has apparently been a cut from £122,000 last year down to £52,000 this year. When I look at what is taking place in the provinces, I become rather nervous. I see that in the provinces expenditure under the head of training, appointments and civil liability departments has been cut down from £122,000 odd last year to £75,000 odd this year, and in connection with the appointments branch there appear to be no district directors or deputy directors in the provinces at all. There is a blank under those heads this year, whereas last year the sums of £4,900 and £2,500 respectively were involved. The total for the provinces, instead of being £135,000 as it was last year, is only £30,870. In view first of the enormous work that the Department is doing, and secondly, in view of the need there is to help the ex-service men, these figures are sufficient prima facie to fill one with alarm. The reductions will work out in this way. If a man in Buckinghamshire or Cambridgeshire or Bedfordshire or in any of the Home Counties wishes to seek advice and help he has to come to London instead of going to Cambridge or some local centre which is easily "get-at-able." If he comes up to London he is only one among thousands: if he goes to a local centre he probably meets an official who has some local knowledge and probably his case receives greater consideration and sympathy.
6.0 P.M.
I wish to refer finally to the King's Roll. I was gratified to hear that the Government have decided to maintain the policy, as far as in them lies, of giving contracts only to firms who have joined the King's Roll. I would like once more to pay my tribute to the man who as far as I know originated this scheme, Mr. Rothband, to whom all ex-service men and the country at large, owe a debt of gratitude for the energy with which he initiated it. Only within the last few hours I have been asked by a great number of ex-service men why it is that the Ministry of Labour are content with the measures being taken now, when so many disabled men are out of employment and when Austria and Germany have got systems of enforcing by law the compulsory employment of disabled men, while, I believe, Italy and France either have or are in process of passing laws
to that effect? I am convinced there are enormous difficulties in the way, but it would be of great assistance to ex-service men if something could be done in this matter. If the Minister of Labour will look into the books of the British Legion and the literature which is being dissemminated through the country in their efforts to increase their membership he will find that part of the policy of the British Legion is to obtain from the Government a scheme whereby it shall be compulsory upon employers to take into their service a certain proportion of ex-service men. I should like to hear from the Minister is that impossible and if it is impossible, why it should be so? Other countries have tried it and we should know whether their trial of it has been a success or not. It is, of course, obvious if one considers it, that for the moment it would be an almost impossible task to Insist upon employers taking in a fixed percentage of disabled men. Hon. Members opposite, I am sure, will see the difficulties which would arise. There would be the difficulty as to the rate of wages which these men should receive. I can imagine that various rates of wages would not strictly apply, while at the same time these rates of wages would be claimed. From the point of view of the disabled men in this country, however, it is right that we should have some statement upon it, having regard to the fact that other countries are putting into force compulsory systems under which disabled men are to be employed. It is at least relevant, that the Government should have some answer to the query why they also cannot take action in the matter and whether the experiment has been a success in the countries where it is now being tried? May-I conclude by assuring my right hon. Friend that I myself am perfectly convinced of his sympathy and help in all questions concerning ex-service men. I have great knowledge of that from my experience in putting cases before him. That does not alter the fact that many of us want some assurance as to his future policy both as regards the Appointments Branch and the Civil Liabilities Department. If he can, I hope he will give us the assurance that, so long as there is this great need to help ex-service men, the Appointments I Branch will be kept on, if possible under
the same personnel, and that the great difficulties of the task will not be handed over merely to one of the permanent Departments of his Ministry, which will not necessarily have the intimate knowledge which must have been gained by now by those who have been in charge of the ex-service men's departments for nearly three years.

Captain GEE: It is with most profound regret that I noticed when the Minister of Labour was making his annual statement that only five of the self-styled champions and representatives of labour were here to listen to him, but it is very encouraging now to discover that they have increased up to eight or nine.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: How many of the Coalition are present? About 14 out of 500!

Captain GEE: I would remind my hon. Friend that on this side we have not styled ourselves the champions or representatives of labour. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. W. Smith), who spoke from the Front Bench opposite on behalf of labour, covered the whole gamut of the labour problem. He discussed everything, from the building of houses and from groceries down to office cleaners, but I do not think I am overstepping the mark when I say that the hon. Member might have submitted all those points to quite a minor official of the Ministry of Labour. He talked of everything except the most important thing, which, I think, concerns us all, and that is unemployment. I am most concerned, as I think most of us should be, with the unemployment which is so rife to-day. I am particularly concerned with the Division that I represent, which is a purely industrial constituency. In the past the Government have made special appeals to civilian employers of labour and outside firms to retain their men as long as possible, but they themselves are not setting an example, for they are dismissing men from Woolwich and other ordnance factories. I do not say that we must keep the establishment of the ordnance factories to-day up to the War standard, but I make this charge, that the Government have shirked their duty and not faced the facts. I submit that they ought to have discharged the men and reduced the establishment as soon as possible after
the Armistice, when we were in for a trade boom, and when the men could have found employment outside, instead of turning them on the street now when we are going through a slump in trade.
I am going to make no apology for reverting to the question of the unemployed men. It has been very instructive to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) in his able address on behalf of the ex-service men, and I, too, think that credit has to be given, not only to the present Minister of Labour, but to all the right hon. Gentlemen who have filled that position, for the work which the Ministry of Labour has done for the ex-service men. I am in close touch with the Trainees National Guild and in close communication with the training of these men, and I am going to deal for a few moments with the disabled men, a question which we hear too much about in this House and all over the country. I mean that we talk too much about it, but we do not give any practical help whatever. It seems to be thought that, owing to the trade depression, there is no room at the present moment to train more of these disabled men, but I disagree entirely with that view. It reminds me that five years ago to-day those very men took the risk of their lives at the Battle of Arras in order to save the men they are now turning to for help, and I submit that now is the time for the employers of labour and for the local technical advisory committees to take a little of the risks that we took five years ago. It takes 18 months to train these men. Surely they are not going to take such a pessimistic view as to think that in 18 months' time we shall still be in a trade slump. At that time we all hope and believe most devoutly that we shall be in the middle of a revival and a trade boom, and then the cry will come: Why did you not train disabled men? The very people who will make that cry then are those who to-day say we cannot do it because of the trade depression. Let them take some of the risks and open the the gate wider than it is, realising that it takes, as I say, 18 months to train a man and that by that time trade will have been revived.
I wish to refer again to the King's Roll and to the Royal Warrant holders. I asked the right hon. Gentleman not many days ago if he would give us the numbers,
and he gave us the numbers, and I was astonished to find that there were so few of the holders of His Majesty's Royal Warrant, traders and manufacturers, qualified to have their names upon the King's Roll. I realise that one or two of them may be small tradesmen who employ only one or two men, but there are still large numbers of them who, I submit with all respect, if they are fit to hold His Majesty's Royal Warrant, ought at least to be loyal enough to carry out His Majesty's command. I want to give one illustration of how practical help, and not quite so much talk, may be given by hon. Members of this House on all sides. It is within my knowledge that not long ago a Member of this House was visiting a certain town where a by-election was going on, and he made it his business during the day to interview some of the manufacturers in that district. As a result, in six days' time 17 disabled men were found employment, and in two days in the following week three improverships were found. That is one way in which hon. Members of this House can do something to help the disabled men. I wish, in conclusion, to remind the Committee of the great number of women who have now joined the industrial world, amounting to some hundreds of thousands more than we had in industry in pre-War days, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can see any way of extending that scheme of training women for household duties that he has now got in being at Newcastle down to other big industrial centres, because I believe there are plenty of women who would rather do that natural function of household work than go into factories and mills, if they knew there was a means by which they could be effectively trained for household work, and thus leave the industrial world for the men.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I will not follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Captain Gee), but I wish, if I may, to say a word or two in regard to the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer). Before doing that, however, I would like to join with the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in saying how much I regret that by some mismanagement the Labour
party did not allow this Debate to be postponed until the report of the Estimates Committee on the Ministry of Labour expenditure was in the hands of hon. Members. The Estimates Committee has been working for some weeks on the very points which are being discussed to-day. Some hon. Members sneered at the appointment of that Committee, but here is an opportunity for that Committee, which is doing good work, for placing helpful facts before the House, and by some mismanagement, as I say, its criticism is not made available, and we have this Vote before us before the Committee's report is in the hands of hon. Members. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham took occasion for saying that there was still need for the Appointments Branch, or rather need for the training and care of ex-service men, not necessarily disabled, and, of course, we are all of that opinion. Nobody could have any other opinion. They must be looked after. I think, however, my hon. and gallant Friend, if he had really studied the administration of the Department, would see how foolish it is on his part to advocate the retention of the Appointments Branch. Does he know how that branch is working? Let me put aside at once any charge that I might be against helping these ex-service men. That is not the case. I am all for helping them, but what is the Appointments Branch doing? The Minister of Labour said that it has 13,800 or more men on its rolls, and in the first three weeks of this month, on an average, work was found for only 250 a week. It is not the fault of the Department. It can do no more than it does, but to keep a Department going which can only find work for an average of 250 men a week, out of a total of 13,800 applicants, is a waste of time and money. I do not mean that it should be abolished absolutely.
Let me take again the case of the men in training. As far as I read in the Estimates, we spend £90,000 a year, and we have 270 men in business training at the moment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham expressed apprehension at the expenditure being reduced. Well, the staff is now about 187, and this time last year it was 525, but why? The reason is that there is not the work for the staff to do. My view is this, the Minister should roll the branch
up and amalgamate it into the general body of the Labour Ministry. They could do the work.

Captain BOWYER: What part of the Ministry of Labour is going to carry on this work, and how does my hon. Friend expect that, things being so bad, it will do any better than the Appointments Branch and the Civil Liabilities Branch, which have had personal experience of the work?

Mr. SAMUEL: They will not do it any better or worse, for they will not find any more work, because if you have no work it cannot be found. These men are simply a special Department trying to get work for men where there is no work, and I say we should get rid of the 187 men who are now employed in the Appointments Branch, roll them into the Ministry of Labour, disband the Appointments Branch as a Department, and use some of those men, if you wish, to deal with the matter in the Labour Ministry, but certainly do without these separate Departments. As a matter of fact, knowing, as I do, something from personal experience of this Department, where I worked under Lord Carmichael and Sir William Plender, I say that the policy and administration with regard to finding work for these men, and the training to which they are entitled—and I wish by all the means I can, either by my voice or my vote, to help them—the whole policy, I say, is in a sloppy condition. So far as the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite is concerned, I disagree about the form of administration, and I have risen because he made a point of wishing to keep on the Appointments Department I desire to advocate and impress upon the Minister of Labour the view that he should now re-cast the whole of the policy of the Appointments Branch. He should, if possible, moreover, find out and tell us what he proposes to spend upon the Branch, and not only in administration but also in grants. I believe this year we are voting for services arising out of the War, for training under Item O, £250,000. This thing may run on for years. Then there is Item P—Training of Demobilised Officers and Men of His Majesty's Forces—Industrial, £4,954,661. I do not object to the money being spent, but these two items, O and P, give point
to my argument, namely, a limit of time and expenditure. The Minister ought to reconstruct this Department and the policy, and then let us know how long this policy is going to continue and its probable cost in grants. It is now 3½ years since the War. This expenditure may be going on for 5, 6, or 10 years. Men who were in the War ought to be trained, and they have a right to be trained, and I shall support that principle, but when the Minister here and now says that it may go on for 10 years——

Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not say that it might go on for 10 years.

Mr. SAMUEL: I am sorry I misunderstood my right hon. Friend's nod. I think some limit of time and cost ought to be imposed upon this branch of the Labour administration. Let us know what we are going to spend. Why not? The amount spent on the Appointments Department administration may run, for all we know, under the system of the House of Commons which allows money to be spent and then permission comes afterwards, not to 3 or 4 million pounds, as now, but to 20 million or 30 million pounds for grants and administration. Therefore, I totally disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, and I think that not only should the Department be thrown into the Labour Ministry and the whole policy should be revised, but that a forecast should be given of when the Minister expects the grants and expenditure will come to an end.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I wish, first of all, to take exception to certain remarks that have been made by one or two Members in casting aspersions on the Members of the Labour party. It is rather remarkable that on a Monday, when most of our Members come from the provinces, and have not arrived at this time, such criticism should be made against them by the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee), and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Although we are the smallest party in the House our numbers present to-day compare favourably, in proportion, with any other party in the House. When the right hon. Baronet was criticising the number of the Labour party present,
there were only some 14 members of the Coalition party, which numbers 500, and when the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich was speaking, there were only 20 members of the same party sitting in the House. So that that party shows up considerably worse than the Labour party so far as interest in this Debate is concerned. It may also be interesting to note that with all the hon. and gallant Gentleman's sympathy and criticism, he voted the other night against the Labour party's Amendment trying to get more money for the unemployed. Let him go back to Woolwich and explain why he tries to get so little for the unemployed in his own division. I notice some hon. Members have left after having their hit at the Labour party. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, at least, was quite consistent. The whole of his party was present, and when he left the Committee he took the whole party with him.
I desire to raise the question of ex-service men's training centres. I have had quite a number of letters from the training centre at Cathcart, in Glasgow. I am not going to speak for men in other places, but only for the men in the training department in the city I represent. The men there are dissatisfied. Other Members can state whether men who have been trained in their particular district are voicing the same dissatisfaction. The opinion of these men is that the system has entirely broken down. The Minister spoke of the number of trained men who have been trained to certain trades other than those which they followed in pre-War days, and for whom employment had been found. He said that some 63,000 men who had been trained had found employment, or had had employment found for them. What I should like to know—and it would have a considerable bearing upon the representations made to me by ex-service men trained at Cathcart—is how many of these 63,000 men for whom employment has been found are still working at the trades at which they were trained in these training centres? By being supplied with that information, we can judge of the success of the present method of training ex-service men. I am assured by the men who receive training at Cathcart that the whole method seems to have broken down; that, so far as the training is concerned, the men like the training, and are quite pre-
pared to go on with it, but they find that quite a lot of the promises made to them by the Ministry of Labour when they undertook to go into this training scheme have not been carried out. For example, after a period in some of the trades outside situations were to be found for them, and they were to be ranked as improvers. They tell me that they can find no situations as improvers. Canvassers as well as those in the Appointments Department were seeking to find work for them, but, at the end of their period of training in the training centre, all that is left for them is to go out from that centre and sign on at the Employment Exchange.
That is not according to the original promise made to these men, nor according to the scheme submitted to them when they were advised to undertake training. And, after all, men who are in these training centres are probably in worse circumstances than many of the other ex-service men. These men are unable, because of their disability owing to the War, to carry on the trades which they learnt, and the trades at which they were working, in pre-War times. You are here teaching men to follow some new occupation, and giving them various periods in which they are supposed to learn the theoretical and part of the practical work of a particular trade. You are supposed to find them situations where they can be looked upon as improvers, as having gone through a certain part of their apprenticeship, but not completed all their training, and employers were going to allow these men to come into their works and pass a period of their time as improvers before getting standard rates. All these promises seem to have been violated, or, at least, the scheme has broken down. You have these men signing on at the Employment Exchanges. Some at Glasgow have been signing on for six, 10 or 12 months after leaving the training centre. One can imagine that even a man trained at his own trade will find himself a little stiff and be able to handle tools less readily after a period of 12 months' idleness. What about those men who have been merely trained under instructors, are unemployed for nine months and then are offered a situation? Why, the whole of the instruction they have received in the training centre is so much wasted labour so far as they are concerned.
I am going to suggest that, at the present time, when it is impossible to find situations for the men whose period of training has come to an end, or is coming to an end in the course of the next few months, instead of sending those men out of the training centres, and telling them the canvassers will do their best to give them a situation, that they should be kept in the training centres, carrying on under the technical instructors, so that when the trade boom, which so many Members think possible, comes, these men will be sufficiently well equipped to take up any improvership that is offered to them. I do not think any hon. Member will disagree with a suggestion of that nature.

Captain BOWYER: Except the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). He would not agree.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Why not? I do agree.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not think he would disagree.

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Member misrepresents me.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not excluding any Member in this House, not even the hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. Hopkinson). I do not think it would mean an addition to the Vote, but merely a readjustment of the money in the interests of ex-service men, and my hon. Friend opposite will not oppose that idea.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON indicated assent.

Mr. MACLEAN: While we have certain committees appointed, the whole work of administration in these training centres is carried through too much on the military system. There seems to be too much Army discipline. The men do not object to discipline, but they object to the methods on which it is sometimes carried out, and I was going to suggest that, so far as these training centres are concerned, the men might be allowed to have representation upon some of the committees that are set up under these schemes, so that they can have a voice, not in the control of the training centres, but at least some voice in advising the administrators as to what they consider the best method in order to obtain the highest technical skill with
which the instructors can furnish them. I throw it out as a suggestion to the Minister of Labour that the men themselves might be invited to take part on some of the advisory committees, or at least give some advice to the committees as to the methods in which these training centres might be conducted. If the men themselves are so interested in the schemes that they wish to advise where they see the schemes are breaking down, where they see instruction is not being utilised in the best possible way, where they see the possibilities of men losing all the skill they have acquired in the handling of tools in these training centres, where these men can advise the administration in their own training centre, or even the Ministry of Labour, then I think such a suggestion coming from the men themselves—not from me—might have some consideration at the hands of the Minister of Labour, and at the hands of those who have control of these training centres.
The other point I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to, or, perhaps, rather to emphasise, is the suggested alteration in the payment of associated benefit, and the percentage that is given to certain trade unions for assisting that work. It is suggested that the payment should be reduced. Let me emphasise the fact that it will not pay the trade unions to administer associated benefit at a reduced rate. Speaking for the union of which I am a member, I would say that the amount of money we paid out in associated benefit at one period left the Minister of Labour in our debt to the amount of £80,000. We did not wish to realise any of the Government and other securities we possessed. We possessed a very large amount of War Loan, and therefore it meant we had to have an overdraft at the bank, upon which we were paying 7 per cent, interest. We approached the Minister of Labour, and asked him to help us to try to reduce this overdraft. We pointed out the disadvantage at which we were being placed. His reply was, "Oh, but we are paying you a percentage for administering this associated benefit." That was being paid other trade unions, too, and the cost was thrown upon us all in the way I have described.
That was the Ministry's way of trying to evade their responsibility by keeping the trade unions out of large sums of
money. If they are going to reduce the amount allocated to the trade unions to pay the small percentage allowed for paying this associated benefit, then the trade unions will seriously have to consider as to whether it is worth while continuing to pay it. In these circumstances if the whole cost is thrown upon the Employment Exchanges, as undoubtedly it will he, if they pay the associated benefit, the expenses thrown upon the administration of the Exchanges will be considerably higher than the present percentage paid to the trade unions. The result would be a very heavy increase in the cost of administration. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reply to the two points I have put: that is the training centres for ex-service men and this matter of associated benefit the administration expenses of which it is proposed to reduce.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I daresay the House will have noticed that during the last 20 minutes we have not had on the Front Bench any Minister representing the Labour Department, or anybody representing the Treasury. It is quite clear the Minister of Labour cannot be expected to remain the whole day, because his Parliamentary Secretary is abroad, but I do submit that if not the Minister of Labour the whole time, seeing this is a Supply day, someone representing the Treasury ought to be on the Front Bench. I do not want to say one word disrespectful about the hon. Members who are now on the Treasury Bench (Sir J. Baird and Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. Gilmour) who are representing their respective Departments, but neither of them have anything to do with the Labour Department or the Treasury—at all events they do not directly represent the Treasury. We are being asked to spend something in the neighbourhood of £20,000,000. From the speeches to which we have listened, it is quite clear, looking at the very wide ground that they cover, what an immensely important Vote this is. I was very interested in listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) when he pointed out how urgently important it was to get employers and employed more often together. I feel that that really is one of the greatest of problems that now faces the Ministry of Labour.
I myself do not feel that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has been at all helped in this matter by speeches made by members of the Government during the last 12 months. I think his task has been made infinitely more difficult by the speeches lately made in the country by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary for the Colonies. During the last two years they have made the most bitter and constant attacks upon Labour in mass, and not only bitter, but indiscriminate. They have tried to tar the whole Labour party with a brush which only should have been applied to a few extremists. Personally I am convinced that these ill-timed and unfair attacks have done more to embitter relations between capital and labour than almost anything else in the last 12 months. I do not believe for a moment that these two Ministers represent either Conservative opinion as a whole or Liberal opinion as a whole. I think they have done very bad service to industrial peace. I hope the Minister of Labour will do what he can so to administer his Department as to bring, if possible, employed and employers nearer together, and in some way, if possible, to simplify the machinery of unemployment insurance. Up to now, there is no doubt about it, he has thrown a good deal of cold water upon contracting-out. He has not allowed special schemes to go through. I think my hon. Friends above the Gangway will agree that there are a good many important industries which would have welcomed schemes of contracting-out under the Act, because the more special schemes are allowed, the more will employers and employed be brought together for negotiating amongst themselves, and I believe, in the long run, this would lead to a far better feeling in the industrial world.
Let me, however, deal with the actual Estimates before us. I do not want to criticise any money that at present is being usefully spent for the Department. I want, however, to criticise what I believe to be unnecessary expenditure upon administration, because, after all, unnecessary expenditure on administration benefits nobody at all, and, on the other hand, it means less money for the genuine needs of the community. In this connection, take one point in the Geddes Report. This is what they said on the Ministry of Labour:
We do not consider a period of exceptional unemployment as the most appropriate for settling a permanent establishment, and strongly deprecate any addition to the permanent staff at the present time.
That was the opinion of the Geddes Committee. That recommendation has been almost wholly ignored by the Minister of Labour. Practically in every single branch of the Ministry of Labour in these Estimates, the temporary personnel is being turned into a permanent personnel.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: Very largely! I think it is a very serious question, because when temporary officials are turned into permanent officials it makes it infinitely more difficult in the future to effect economy. In fact, I find, looking through these Estimates, that the permanent staff actually has been increased by 805 during the last 12 months. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said in this House on 6th April, last Thursday:
The staff in that period has been reduced from 21,000 persons to 15,000 persons, and if human effort can achieve it, I shall certainly continue to reduce administration to the minimum. …" —f OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1922; col. 2459, Vol. 152.]
He is now, in the Supplementary Estimate, asking for £293,000 odd to be spent in salaries. Therefore, it is quite clear that a larger staff must be contemplated. You will find that if you work out the £290,000 into persons with an average salary of £5 10s. per week, that it means an extra 1,000 officials. Anyhow, he is asking for this extra money for salaries, so I think he must mean increased staff, and as I have just read out, my right hon. Friend said that, "If human effort could achieve it, he would do his utmost to reduce administration to a minimum." Then you find there is a Labour Adviser at a salary of £3,000 per annum. I do not want to say anything derogatory to and against the ability of the present holder, for we know the great respect felt for the present Labour Adviser. He does his work, I believe, most excellently and efficiently; but he is the highest-paid official in the whole of the Ministry. My right hon. Friend himself gets only the very modest sum of £2,000.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Very modest.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Comparatively modest. I think it is a very anomalous situation that the Labour Adviser to the Ministry should get 50 per cent, more than the actual Minister, and that the Labour Adviser should get 40 per cent, more than the Permanent Secretary, who receives £2,200. This salary of £3,000 was fixed at a Very extravagant time, when the Ministry was spending money like water, and I should have thought with the reduction in the cost of living and the higher value of the £ sterling that the salary might have been reduced. There is another point in connection with this salary of the Labour Adviser. My right hon. Friend may remember that last year, when we were discussing this Vote, it was pointed out that there were two permanent Secretaries, and there was quite a long Debate on the matter. It was pointed out that two permanent Secretaries were utterly unnecessary, and that the Labour Ministry was the only Ministry, with the exception of the Health Ministry, that had two permanent Secretaries. What has happened? Owing to the criticism my right hon. Friend comes down here and estimates for only one permanent Secretary——

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Ah, but the right hon. Gentleman has turned the other into what he now calls the Labour Adviser. If hon. Members look down the list they will see that the headquarters established staff is exactly the same as last year. Therefore this reduction is absolute window-dressing, and means nothing at all. We still retain exactly the same personnel. We have still got under different names two permanent Secretaries, one at £3,000 a year and the other at £2,200 a year. Take the Intelligence Statistics Division: you have there another instance of what was mentioned in Committee the other day, where temporary officers are being turned into permanent officials. In this Department no less than 50 temporary clerks have been given permanent appointments. How are we going to economise if every year we are going to see persons who were taken on temporarily during the War turned into permanent officials?
There is another point to which I desire to draw attention. You have the Trade
Board officials for the purpose of regulating the wages in certain industries. I do feel that all this is for the benefit of the industries concerned, and they ought certainly to pay part of the expense. I do not see why all the expense connected with that Department should fall upon the Exchequer, and the industries concerned certainly ought to pay towards the expenditure involved, which is very high. The Chairmen of this Board get five guineas a day and the members of the Board get three guineas a day. That is at the rate of nearly £2,000 a year for a Chairman and £l,100 a year for each member. I impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of getting these industries to pay a certain proportion of the cost, and if he would do this he would be rendering a good service to the cause of economy.
I now turn to the transformation of temporary into permanent officials in the Insurance Department. We find here a good many of the officials are getting increased salaries. Here again we get the same kind of window dressing and camouflage which I have already pointed out in connection with the labour adviser. You find the assistant general manager last year on a maximum salary of £750, and he now becomes a deputy-chief inspector with a maximum salary of £850, or an increase of £100 a year, although it is exactly the same man doing the same duties.

Dr. MACNAMARA: He is doing greater duties and he has a much larger responsibility.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There are five inspectors of the first class getting £100 a year extra. If you look at the Estimates you will find that the temporary clerks have been reduced by 2,646, but a little higher up we find that the permanent clerks have been increased by 2,606 which shows a saving of only 40. The same thing is happening in the provinces. There you have nine divisional controllers costing nearly £8,000 last year. This year they are costing £9,000, an average rise of over £100 a year each. You have nine assistant controllers, but they haven changed their name. I do not know whether that is on account of increased work or not, but they have now become deputy-divisional controllers, and they get a rise of £100
a year. Really the whole of this business is, to my mind, most irritating to the general taxpayer. Hon. Members may think that I have picked out bad cases, but I can assure them that if they go through the Estimates they will find similar instances on every page. The real difficulty is not to find instances, but to select them. One does not like to bore the House with them; they are to be found on every single page of the Estimates.
I should like to give one more instance, that of the Umpire and the Court of Referees. I see that in this case the travelling allowances are a quarter of what they were last year, showing that the work must have been infinitely less in a great many respects than it was last year. In spite of this 70 per cent, reduction in the work, the remuneration is exactly the same, and there is not a fall even in accordance with the cost of living. As a matter of fact, the staff has actually increased. Although there has been a reduction in the bonus the salaries have gone up. Where is the economy here? The work is less and the cost of living less, and therefore the total ought to be less. If the cost of living has gone down that is a double reason why the expenditure in connection with this administration should go down. I have nothing more to say on these points. I have tried to make my points as clear as I can. I feel so strongly about it, and I feel that there is so much scope for cutting down expenditure in connection with this Department that I shall certainly go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend in support of this Amendment.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down apparently does not appreciate the fact that, even supposing that the whole of the staff employed by this Ministry were to work for nothing, the saving would not be really appreciable when one considers the hundreds of millions of indirect expenditure the country has to meet as a result of the existence of that Ministry. More than one speaker has drawn attention to one possible solution of the problem of unemployment, suggesting that insurance by industry, each industry looking after its own unemployed, is the way out of the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts)
pointed out one or two difficulties, and I should like to point out one or two further difficulties which render that suggestion entirely useless. In the first place, if the Minister by giving permission to contract-out schemes allows industries to insure themselves against unemployment, it is quite certain that only those industries where the percentage of unemployment from year to year is very small will agree to contract out. That being so, the scheme will become even more bankrupt than it is at the present time, inasmuch as the premiums of those trades which do not have to pay large benefits would be taken away from the fund, and the fund would be dependent on those industries where the percentage of unemployment is high.
There is a further objection, if that is not sufficient, and it is that in all industries you have employers who look upon this problem in different ways. You may have employers who, when trade is good and the boom is on, take on men recklessly in order to reap the advantage of the high profits, but without any regard or consideration as to what is going to happen to those unfortunate men when the boom period has passed. There are other employers who look at this matter from a very different point of view. When the trade boom is on they are extremely careful not to take on more men than they can afford to keep on when the immediate trade boom is over, not allowing themselves to be so much influenced by the prospects of gigantic profits. If you have unemployment insurance by industry the considerate employer will have to bear the burden of the less considerate employer, and it will make it more and more difficult for the man who does his best to keep up a regular level of employment, and make it easier for the man who is totally inconsiderate in regard to the men whom he employs. Those are two cogent reasons why all this talk about unemployment insurance by industry is really altogether by the board.
What is the main question at issue on this particular Amendment? I think we are supposed to be debating an Amendment for the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary by £100? In my opinion this is a suitable opportunity for considering what this House has never considered before, and that is, what is the Minister of Labour for, and what his
Department is for also? At the beginning of this Debate the right hon. Gentleman gave us a long list of things which his Department was doing, but he has never yet given us any sort of reason for justifying the existence of that Department as a Ministry. He has never yet shown that the functions which his Department exercises are in any sense functions of the Government or of the State.
I have suggested previously that the object of his Department and the function it performs for the public good is that of keeping the rate of wages above the economic level. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, will give us his reason for thinking that is not the case. If that is the object of his Department, I can congratulate him upon its success. He has so managed to keep the wage-rate above the economic level that we now have something like 2,000,000 men unemployed in this country. It is a case of Si monumentum requiris, circumspice, and you only need to look around the Employment Exchanges to see what a success the Labour Ministry has been. I think the real trouble arose because this Ministry was created at a time when the whole country, the House of Commons, and the Government were in a particularly hysterical condition, and when the members of the Labour party strongly impressed upon the Government the necessity for a Labour Ministry, and it was created without any real consideration as to whether it had any useful functions to perform for the good of the community and the State. It may be said that although the Labour Ministry has no real functions, yet it is quite harmless, and the money spent upon its activities provides jobs for very many excellent gentlemen throughout the country at a time when unemployment is so very rife. I suggest that the effect of the existence and the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department has been absolutely disastrous in one direction. For so far as the great trade unions of this country are concerned, the Labour Ministry and the policy of the right hon. Gentleman have been absolutely disastrous in their effect.
7.0 P.M.
In this matter I speak as one who throughout the whole of his working career has done his level best to assist that great movement and strengthen it, being convinced that it is really the weak-
ness of trade unions rather than their strength which is the cause of industrial trouble. If the trade unions had only the strength they used to have before they became so unwieldy, industrial peace would be much nearer than it is at the present time. What is the policy of the Ministry in this matter? It endeavours to take away from trade unions those functions which every man who is a worker, with his brain or his hands, recognises as beneficent, no matter what his views or politics are. It endeavours to take away the benefits conferred by the trade unions, apart from the political side of those institutions. Having done so—to a certain extent successfully—it has left trade unions simply dragging along at the heels of the Labour party instead of performing the functions they performed in the past. The Labour Ministry caters for the man who does not belong to the trade unions, but I would ask hon. Members to consider whether there is any valid reason why any manual worker should not belong to a trade union, except one. In my view there is only one reason, and that is that there are some among us—I think I am one myself—who value their freedom more than anything else on earth, and it is only because a man values his freedom so highly that he has any valid excuse for not belonging to any trade union if he is engaged in one of the manual trades of this country. Such a man, being an individualist and acting as an individualist, must take the consequences of his own individualism. If he will not take advantage of collective action in his own trade to obtain these benefits, then it is certainly not the function of the State to interpose and say they will save this individualist from the consequences of his own convictions.
I do not think hon. Members opposite, so far as I recollect during this present Parliament, have ever drawn attention to this great danger the trade unions are facing to-day. We know that the financial position of the trade unions to-day is very serious indeed, and is likely to be worse in the near future. We know that owing to circumstances over which, in the main, the directors of the trade unions have no control, the membership is dropping away week by week in a very serious manner indeed.
These two great causes of weakness in trade unionism are obvious to all, but there is this further persistent, most insidious, and intimately, as I think, most fatal cause of the degradation of trade unionism in this country, that the Labour Ministry is taking out of the hands of the trade unions all the beneficent functions they ever possessed and exercised, and is reducing them simply to a means for providing funds for running Labour candidates for Parliament. If trade unions continue in that position, and there is no reform from inside those trade unions, very soon, it seems to me, the great days of trade unionism will be gone.
Let us look at another aspect of the same question. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) said that the duty of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour was to get the employed and the employers together, a simple catchword which never yet saved any industrial dispute, so far as my recollection goes. For getting the two together means, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Wood Green, that you get a long table, you put representatives of the employers on the one side, representatives of the men on the other side, a neutral chairman at the top, and then you go about the discussion as if there was some common interest between the employers of labour and another common and opposing interest among the men in that industry. That is one of the greatest fallacies, and it gives rise in the present day to more industrial unrest than anything else. There is no common interest whatsoever between employers in any given industry. The man whom I, as an employer of labour in the engineering industry, am fighting is the other employer of labour in that particular branch of the engineering industry and no one else, and to fight him I depend upon the willing and skilful help of those I employ. Therefore, I have always refused—and as time goes on I believe other employers of labour will also refuse—to go into any such game as the Minister of Labour is always trying to play with industry, a game in which you have on the one side employers and on the other side men. The competition is not between one employer and his men, but between one employer and the men who help him and the other
employer who competes against him and the men who help that man in that competition.
Until the right hon. Gentleman really gets that simple conception into his head he can do nothing in industry except to cause, as he has done hitherto, more and more trouble as time goes on. Ever since the Ministry of Labour was created during the War, ever since it began its beneficent functions to prevent unrest and trouble, ever since the day of its birth, industrial troubles have got worse and worse year by year, until last year they culminated in the worst disputes, I believe, for 50 years. That trouble is due simply to this hopelessly false conception of the function of competition in industry, this idea that you have a common interest between employers of a trade and another common interest between the men of that trade. I must be forgiven if I repeat this. It is such a simple conception, and if the right hon. Gentleman would only free himself from the prejudices which have been rammed into his mind by the Labour party, and would look on industry as a whole, I think, perhaps, he would see this particular point. I hope that in his reply he will tell us, not the wonderful number of men who have been able to draw doles at the Unemployment Exchanges, not the wonderful devices by which he has been able to call Poor Relief by other and less opprobrious names, but that he will tell us what his Ministry is for, because that is what we want to know more than anything else.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I feel sure the Committee will agree when I say that the human race has thrown up two great economists in the persons of Karl Marx and the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), and that the greatest of the two is the hon. Member. The knowledge of some men is profound, and their conceit is colossal. I think that is sufficient on that score.
I rose in order to make a comment or two on the proposal that has been made to the Ministry of Labour on several occasions in this House, in favour of unemployment insurance by industry, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be induced to follow that line. In that connection, I agree with the hon.
Member for Mossley that unemployment insurance by industry is an impossible thing. Insurance ought to be mutual. It ought to be based on the principle that the strong shall help the weak, that the healthy shall help the sick; but if we have the idea, as we have already under the State health scheme, that you segregate people for insurance purposes, then you come to the point where the poor must help the poor, the sick help the sick, and the strong will help the strong. I ask the Minister of Labour to turn to the Minister of Health to seek his experience of insurance in connection with the State health scheme before he launches-out on any scheme of unemployment insurance by industry. What has transpired? There was a valuation of all the health insurance societies in this country at the end of 1918, with the result that some of the segregated societies covering very poor workpeople came out in the valuation without a penny piece to spare. Other approved societies, covering a better class of people, secured valuation sums amounting to 5s. per week for additional benefits because of the good life of those people, and because they were in continuous employment. I think the experience on that side ought to guide the Minister, and I trust he will declare to-night, if possible, that he will not launch on any scheme of unemployment insurance by industry.
I wish to call the attention of the Minister to the circular, dated 6th April, which he has just issued to private associations who are now administering unemployment insurance. I fail to understand how the Minister works out his figures in these Estimates. He shows a sum of £280,000 decrease for administration in approved associations, while, strangely enough, he came before the House the other day and asked it to pass a Measure to increase the appropriation allowance from 10 per cent, to 12½ per cent. I would like, therefore, to receive an explanation on that point from the Minister when he replies. I would like to have his personal attention because of the very bad feeling it has created. The circular suggests that the rate of allowance for administering unemployment benefit for approved associations is to be reduced from 6d. to 3d.,
according to the percentage of unemployment, and I am told on good authority that the Is. per week that they are now getting will, under this proposal, be reduced to 3d. I take it there must be some explanation of the difference between this proposal and the request of the Minister, granted to him by the House the other day, that the appropriation allowance should be increased from 10 per cent, to 12½ per cent. This circular has caused a great deal of bad feeling among the trade unions who are administering this benefit. I must also refer to the Trade Boards for a moment or two, and I would like to call attention to the fact that in the fine chemical trades there is a classic example which has caused apprehension in some trade unions. The Minister of Labour, in dealing with Trade Boards, may have given either a verbal instruction, a hint, or a suggestion—I hope he has not—to the chairmen of some of the Trade Boards, that when they receive terms of reference—I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, I am speaking of arbitrators appointed by the Minister.

Dr. MACNAMAFIA: In connection with?

Mr. DAVIES: In connection with the fine chemical industry. The particular cast is as follows. The two parties, employers and workpeople, decided on terms of reference which did not include at all any reference to a sliding scale. When Sir Wm. MacKenzie, the Chairman, came to the arbitration proceedings he informed the parties that he would take account of anything new referred to by the employers, and they referred to a sliding scale. What I am anxious to know is whether the Minister has given instructions to chairmen in arbitration cases that they may include in the terms of reference a sliding scale. The trade unions are getting very apprehensive, and in this case the representatives of the trade unions declined to proceed with the arbitration at all. I feel sure the Minister will agree with me that it would be a very dangerous thing indeed to tamper with chairmen of arbitration courts in connection with terms of reference. I want also to offer a few observations with regard to Trade Boards. There are 2,000,000 workers under Trade Boards at the present
time, and there are 60 Trade Boards, but there are only 20 inspectors employed by the Ministry to see that the decisions of the Trade Boards are carried out. It is impossible for 20 people to do that work. There are scores of infringements that cannot be found out and will not be found out, and in consequence employers go free of conviction because there is an insufficient number of people to investigate cases of this kind. I trust the Ministry will not be influenced in the least by the demand for the suppression of Trade Boards. Members of this Committee will call to mind what happened at Tipton the other day. There were girls employed there in connection with the dismantling of cartridges who were being paid 6s. per week wages. Can anyone stand up and declare that a Trade Board is not necessary in a case of that kind? If any hon. Member does say so I fail to understand his mind. I hope the Minister will see to it that there will be an extension of these Trade Boards to all industries where men and women are deliberately exploited and sweated for the sake of profit.
The right hon. Gentleman has recently issued a Regulation to the effect that the position of single men and women who appear to be wholly or mainly maintained by their relatives should be determined in the light of the applicant's present circumstances. Let us see how that operates. I had a case brought to my notice only this morning from Yorkshire, where a man employed for three days a week only was keeping his widowed mother and his three adult sisters, all of whom are unemployed. The Committee dealing with the case of the three adult females have declared that they are single women ordinarily dependent on their brother. That is the effect of the Circular issued by the Minister. I am glad to see the Committee at Lincoln has struck against these Regulations, because in some cases they are by far too stringent in their application. The Minister should withdraw some part of them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have been moved, in connection with the training centres for women—the home-work centres—to do something. I am conversant with the good work that has been done, and I can assure the Minister we are very sorry indeed in that part of the country in which I live that
there is no money forthcoming to carry on their work. I have here a document which proves the very valuable work done by these centres, and I trust that money will be found, as hitherto, to carry it on and thus to help the women, in the way that attempts are being made to help men, to secure some form of employment. After all, it is better to spend £1 a week on training women to earn their living decently than to pay benefits to a like sum for which nothing is got in return.

Sir R. COOPER: I have associated myself with the proposal for the reduction of this Vote in order that I may draw attention to the lack of effort on the part of the Government, and especially on the part of the Ministry of Labour, to deal with the problems in connection with Labour with which this country is faced at the present time. First, however, I would like to raise a point in connection with the Appointments Branch which was dealt with this afternoon by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson). Looking through the Estimate I find that in the Appointments Branch in the provinces the staff has been reduced from 459 to 128, but when I come to the headquarters staff of the Appointments Branch I find that the personnel of the headquarters staff has been increased from 40 to 55. It may be possible that the reduction in the provinces, and some re-arrangement of the work, may have thrown a greater volume of work on the headquarters staff. I have taken a little trouble to try and get at the facts.

Dr. MACNAMARA: This figure 55, I think, does not refer to the Appointments Branch alone.

Sir R. COOPER: It comes under the special heading of the Appointments Branch. Still, the exact figures do not really matter. The point I want to make is this. I am informed there has been a good deal of complaint in the Appointments Branch of a lack of work quite recently, and that representations have been made to the right hon. Gentleman himself on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman told us, in introducing this Vote this afternoon, that he has made every effort, consistent with serving the welfare of those whom he is expected to benefit, to cut down expenditure, and
that being so, I know his desire is to see that there is no waste. I have reason to believe, however, that there is a real waste and that there is too much staff with not enough work to do. Some of the principal officers in the right hon. Gentleman's Department have, I am told, actually made suggestions that there ought to be removals, as there are too many of them. I have been told this from the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and I hope that he will be good enough to very carefully look into this matter.
I was impressed last week when we were dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Bill, by the memorandum at the beginning of the Bill. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, was bud getting for 1,250,000 unemployed people up to June, 1923. That, of course, if there is any substratum of truth in the Estimate—and knowing what I do of the position of industry in this country to-day I am afraid there may be—foreshadows a very grave problem for the next twelve months. This afternoon we have been debating the training of ex-service men. A very large sum of money is being spent on that, with the full sympathy and support of both the House and the country, as we are all anxious to do our utmost to alleviate the sufferings of these men and to put them in a position in which they can earn their own livelihood. But let us remember it is no use spending an enormous sum of money on the training of men when there is very little probability of many of them getting employment for some long time to come, after they have received the benefits which the right hon. Gentleman is administering. That fact alone is a very disturbing one to my mind, and, taken with many others of a similar nature, it really raises the question put by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), when he was attacking the Ministry of Labour, as to what really that Ministry exists for. Is it merely to administer unemployment insurance and similar Measures of that kind which Parliament has passed? If it is to do nothing more than that I should be in clined to agree with the hon. Member for Mossley and others that its continuance is unnecessary. I venture to think it always was the intention of Parliament, and of the country, that the duty of the Ministry of Labour should be to examine from
every point of view all the difficulties which beset Labour, to take evidence thereon, to adopt what steps it can to minimise evils, and to do its utmost to put Labour in this country on the highest possible pedestal compatible with our economic prosperity year in and year out.
When I examine these great problems facing us at the present moment I ask myself: What is the Ministry of Labour really doing to tackle them? I feel it is lacking in proper attention to them. One of the greatest worries of working people in this country is the demand being made in every direction to cut down the rates of wages, especially in those industries where during the War wages rose very high. We have two lock-outs at the present time based on the need for cutting down wages. What we want to know, what the country wants to know, and what Labour desires to know, is what are the real facts about wages and is it necessary for them to be cut down? Surely that is a proper subject for examination by the Ministry. If it is necessary that wages should be cut down do not let us have lock-outs following one upon another, and entailing the disappointments and distress of unemployment to any people. If it is necessary to have a reduction generally throughout the country, let the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, or some other responsible Member of the Government tell the country honestly what are the facts with regard to the question. The moment the right hon. Gentleman tackles that problem he is going to have put to him complaints from Labour against employers—many of them, no doubt, with a good deal of justification, because in these matters, under the system under which we work at present, there is a lot of evil perpetrated, in my opinion, by both sides. It is said with a good deal of truth that there are bad employers as well as good. It can equally be said that there are bad workmen and bad representatives of labour as well as good. Probably that is broadly true, but, as we are going on at present, the broad fact is that each side is trying to get all it can out of the other.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Labour, has this afternoon spoken very strongly and feelingly upon the good work that is being done in con-
nection with industrial peace by the Industrial Councils. I quite agree that the Minister of Labour has been indefatigable in that direction, and in doing everything that can possibly be done to try and bring peace in the difficulties between employers and labour when they have cropped up; but where I am at issue with the right hon. Gentleman is that, so far as regards taking any steps to reduce the 1,250,000 unemployed, and so far as regards disputes between employers and labour at the present time, he is not doing enough. In fact, I do not know that he is doing anything serious at the present time to try and get down to the root of the trouble and find out why these disputes are arising, and what is the reason for all these difficulties with Labour in regard to wages, conditions, output, efficiency of labour, and so on. I was reading only last night some remarks of a Labour Member who very rightly pointed out that we ought to have got beyond the stage where either employers, through lockouts, or labour, through strikes, are trying to benefit themselves through the stomachs of women and children. When all is said and done, whether it be a strike or lockout, it is ultimately only through the stomachs of the people that any results are attainable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) some two months ago said that strikes were of no use, and the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), in the Debate on the Address, said that strikes have not done either the workpeople or the masters any lasting good.
While the right hon. Gentleman is most assiduous and is trying very hard under most difficult conditions to deal with the problems that come up to him, I do want to urge upon him that some steps should be taken by him on behalf of the Government to inquire, by as impartial a body as can possibly be found, into these problems, industrial and financial—because taxation affects the working people very much. It ought to be done without any delay. The truth ought to be ascertained, and, when it is ascertained, there must be no lack of courage on the part of the Government, either through the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour, in telling the country what are the facts, in telling Labour what general lines they have to take up in their own interests if they want to get back to prosperity, and in telling em-
ployers just as strongly what they have to do if they want to get their works going on prosperous lines, instead of having them empty or half empty as so many are at the present moment. I am sure that everyone in this Committee must agree that we are faced with an appalling position, and I say quite frankly, as one knowing a little about industry, that I myself take the most pessimistic view of it, if we are to go on drifting on present lines with no attempt on the part of anyone to do anything.
In the Debate on the Address, I made a most fervent appeal to the Labour party. I remember saying that I had frankly no hope from an appeal to employers through their associations, and I had not much confidence in appealing to the Government, but that there was one body who, if they would only for the moment just drop their little political difficulty of being opposed to the industrial system and wanting to abolish it for something different, and if they would only for the moment, as experts in industry and as the most responsible representatives of the working classes, find out what are the difficulties, examine them to the bottom, find out a remedy, tell us how to get trade going again and how to get employment improved, it would be a piece of work that would stand to the credit of the Labour party in the years to come, and that, if it were done with all the honesty that human beings could command, it would be an enormous service to every class in the country—to the Government themselves, to the State, which has to find these terrific sums year in and year out, to industry and overseas trade, and to the general prosperity of the working classes. There has been no response to that from the Labour party, and I am afraid that under our political conditions there is not likely to be. My only hope now is to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, not to let my remarks, badly expressed though they may be, pass by unheeded, but to get someone to work—say a dozen or 20 of the best picked representatives of Labour and a dozen or 20 of the best picked representatives of Labour and a dozen or 20 of the best leaders of industry and employers—and let them confer together and examine by the best possible means the difficulties of the problem. Let us
have the truth now, and let the Government, when it knows the truth, set to work and begin to reconstruct on lines that have been recognised by both sides as being broadly right and on which they have a policy. If something of that sort be done, there is a possibility of saving this country a year hence, or it may be two years, from a danger which in my honest opinion is very grave indeed. If the right hon. Gentleman will not take that step, I can think of no other, and we shall just drift on, possibly to destruction—though I hope not—at any rate into conditions which are going to be very hard for all classes in this country and to make life not worth living, and which will end by making our country a second—or third—rate nation.

Mr. JOHN MURRAY: I am quite unable to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken in his attribution to the Minister of Labour of functions for which Providence alone would be adequate, although I see the motive of the suggestion, and, in a sense, I share it. While many points have been touched upon in the Debate with regard to the Ministry of Labour, none have been touched upon in a hostile spirit, and none with critical success. When the right hon. Gentleman rises to meet in detail the criticisms as to the construction and running of his Ministry, it seems to me that he will have little to answer. I have been looking at the Estimates, of which there are 20 pages, and it seems to me that, while the Ministry of Labour is not the wicked organisation which some hon. Members consider it to be, although they have not said so this afternoon, it does flourish like the green bay tree. In the short six years of its existence, it has added department to department, function to function, and salary to salary. As the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) has reminded us, it has a most impressive and phenomenal list of salaries. The hon. Member did not ask why that has happened. I feel that I am but repeating what I said the other day in another Debate when I put it to him, and to the party which identifies itself with anti-waste, that they must not merely point out the big salaries which we have here, and which I believe to be earned in the Ministry of Labour, but they must present an alternative policy. If I may, I should like to give them a policy.
The Ministry of Labour is six years old, and these20 pages of Estimates cover an immense outburst of highly centralised government. That is the first important point. I do not blame the centralisation, and I believe in the Ministry of Labour; but centralising tendencies are not the only tendencies that are of value in the government and administration of the country. In those days a Ministry of Labour, which is a necessity for an industrial country, could only begin by a strong phase of centralisation. What I want to suggest to the Minister of Labour is that he should commune with his own spirit, and with those highly deserving officials whom he employs, as to whether the time is not at least rapidly approaching when these centralising tendencies, which have had all the scope in the Ministry of Labour up to this time, ought not to be balanced by decentralisation. I should like to say what I mean by the decentralisation which is appropriate for the functions of the Ministry of Labour. During the War it happened to be my work to have a share in the control of wages and in the practice of conciliation in the Ministry of Munitions, and it was often my lot to go to provincial towns and to handle troubles of an industrial sort at close quarters. Wherever one went one found that there was no organisation of a public kind to which one could appeal, and which ought to be keeping the peace locally, as the hon. Member who has just spoken asked the Minister of Labour should keep it for the whole country. I found that, although every industrial town and district in this country was honeycombed with sectional agencies of the men and the masters, with partial and partisan organisations, yet in none of those areas was there any statutory authority which could be trusted to sum up and express in its work the good sense, experience and goodwill of an industrial community. The masters have their own organisations, and so have the men. There are also bodies called chambers of commerce, but I have never been able to discover what they did; and there are equally futile bodies called trades councils.
There are all manner of sectional organisations on the two sides, none of which is approved and accepted in the industrial community as capable of voicing its view, of building up and maintaining a standard, of imposing a
good standard of behaviour, and infusing good feeling throughout the whole industrial body That I found from personal experience to be a grave deficiency in our arrangements during the War. Since the War, an important Committee which considered the functions and fate of the Employment Exchanges, and of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. Barnes) was chairman, took a great deal of evidence from those advisory committees which are already attached to the local branches of the Employment exchanges, all of which went to show that these committees, wherever they are to he found, are tired of their merely advisory functions, and would rather drop out than goon giving advice that is not listened to. They claim the right to take over the management of that work in the localities as statutory executive bodies. The right hon. Gentleman, in his opening speech to-day, let fall a remark about devolution—avery guarded and defensive remark to the effect that he had no use for it in the present state of development of the Ministry of Labour. Later on I heard him utter compliments to the committees of voluntary workers who performed these advisory functions. I was glad to hear the compliments, but I thought that the members of these committees would be still more glad if they heard from the Minister anything of the nature of a promise to build up those advisory and voluntary functions in to a statutory shape. What I wish to suggest to the Minister, as a way out of many of his troubles, is that over-centralisation of Government control and expenditure is the great political evil which the War has left us, and that the truest path of advance in home affairs is to get rid of all these centralised agencies, so far as that may be done—for they always have a function—andbuild up in their place local bodies capable of performing the great bulk of those functions. In order that I may not seem to be talking in the air, I would suggest that the relation between the centralising and decentralising tendencies in the control of education should be taken as an example and followed by the Minister of Labour in fashioning and preparing the legislation which I hope he will one day soon undertake on this important point. We have the Board of Education, which,
Heaven knows, is big enough and bureaucratic enough, but up and down the country we have large and promising bodies of an autonomous kind under the local authorities which take from the central government and carry out with a freedom of their own under statutory conditions the vast bulk of the educational work of the country. I want to see that done with the Minister of Labour. It is no good doing as the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) does, and that is, tell over all these members of the Civil Service at the Ministry of Labour who receive £2,000 a year. We must face this question, not in a cheeseparing way, but as a real problem of devolution. I believe that by devolution you would set up small but efficient bureaucracies under each of your local industrial authorities. These bureaucracies would do the work that is done by the local provincial branches of the Ministry of Labour, and do it better and faster and cheaper, because their masters would be in the same town, and they would be under the eye and under the thumb of the local bodies statutorily charged with their supervision, and I am, sure this would relieve the State of maintaining a huge army of bureaucrats in Whitehall.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is a suggestion which would involve legislation, and we cannot discuss that on the Estimates.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall): I was going to call the hon. Member to order, but as he was at the end of his speech I did not interrupt him. It is not in order at this stage to discuss legislation, or anything that involves legislation.

Mr. MURRAY: I accept the ruling of the Chair, and I will resay my point in two sentences. The only cure can come by a thoroughly scientific and statesmanlike scheme whereby, by that measure which I must not mention, an alternative method of working shall be brought into existence to these large offices in London.

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have had a very useful Debate. I cannot reply to the speech of the hon. Member who preceded me, which was of interest and of value, because it was out of order, and, in the second place, because I should like to
have had much more time to think about it. Therefore, if I do not turn to it in the short reply I am in a position to make, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand the reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Welling borough (Mr. W. Smith), who opened the Debate, complained of delays in confirming Trade Board rates, especially in the grocery trade. I explained that the application of the Trade Board system to the distributive trades opened up a new field, and that it is not so easy of operation as in the case of direct production trades. I said also it was a pity it came at a time of great depression. But I knew that a considerable amount of evidence was being given before the Cave Committee on the application, for the firt time, to the distributive trades, of the Trade Board system, and therefore I thought I had better, in all the circumstances, wait until I got the report of the Committee before I took any definite line with regard to the proposals made. My hon. Friend suggested that I took that course being, as he would say, intimidated by political action. With the greatest possible respect, that is the sheerest nonsense. I was told from all quarters that if I went ahead with these rates, at a time of great depression, so far from helping people I should probably turn a good many of them into the streets, to swell the ranks of the unemployed. Any man in my position, with this grave responsibility, would be bound to go cautiously. I told the House so, and I am perfectly satisfied I did the right thing, and it is entirely beside the mark to suggest that I was intimidated by political action, or any other action.
One or two hon. Members referred to the training of women. There is in the Estimates a sum of £15,000 for the training of disabled nurses and war widows. Up to March, 1921, 7,174 unemployed women had been trained at a total cost of £154,000. Since April, 1921, the Central Committee on Women's Training and Unemployment have been responsible for the training of unemployed women. They trained 6,000 in home crafts, and they have in training at this time 2,500. The cost has been met by a grant of £50,000 from the Ministry of Labour Vote, to which the Central Committee is putting £100,000 from the share of the National Relief Fund placed at their disposal. They give £2 and I
give £1, or did last year, and that sum is shown in last year's Estimates. In addition, I am advised the Committee have recently allocated from their general fund a further sum of £20,000, which will provide training for a further 1,000. The hon. Member for Welling borough also asked about the exclusion of charwomen from the Act. That was the result of a High Court decision. He asks me to rule them in again, by some regulation. But I cannot; that will have to be a matter of legislation. If I am asked why I did not do it in the recent Bill, I answer that I did not think it expedient, and I am entitled to say, "Neither was there an Amendment moved to that effect."

Mr. W. SMITH: I think the explanation of that would be that we were under the impression that the Act could be extended (by an order of the Ministry, and that there was no necessity for legislation.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Well, I do not think so—after the matter had been dealt with by a High Court action. I am sorry if my hon. Friend thought it could be done by regulation. Nothing I have ever said would have suggested it. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred to the regulation made under the six weeks' extension of benefit which came to an end on the 26th February, and referred to the fact that I had stated that the provision of unemployment benefit from now onwards—15 weeks to the end of October and a possible extension afterwards—will all be under those regulations. He suggested that there will be hardship in particular cases if that is done, and particularly the case, which has been ruled out, of the single young man or young woman living at home or living with relatives who can partly or wholly maintain them. This is not covenanted benefit. Covenanted benefit is payable under the permanent Statute. This is uncovenanted.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: For which they pay.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Or may not pay, and many of them are not in a position to pay. No one knows that better than my hon. Friend. What have I done? I have said: I will make such regulations
as will, at any rate, secure that the fund shall not be improperly dissipated, that it shall be confined to those and conserved for those who really need it, and particularly those who are responsible for children. If there is any single young fellow or girl living at home whose parents can maintain them, they ought not to get this further free uncovenanted benefit. But I recognise that cases of hardship will arise, and in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who, in the Debates on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, asked, "What about the home when both father and mother are out of work?" I say the rule does not apply there, because they are not in a position to maintain them.
On Saturday I sent out a general letter to the local committees on this question of boys and girls who are living with their relatives who may be able to maintain them. Perhaps I might read the last paragraph, and, in any case, I will send each of my hon. Friend's opposite a copy. The last paragraph gives the spirit of it:
Without making anything in the nature of a general charge, the Minister cannot disguise from himself the fact that in the case of a certain number of the younger applicants for benefit who have no responsibilities and who turn to their relatives for a measure, at any rate, of maintenance, the search for work in lieu of benefit is not invariably as diligent as could be desired. On the other hand there is the real difficulty that at the moment it certainly cannot be said that work is everywhere available. What the Minister wishes the committees to do is to examine carefully the merits of each case, in the light of the conditions laid down. These conditions are not designed to rule out benefit in cases where such deprivation would inflict real hardship. They are intended, however, to prevent the improper dissipation of a fund which is limited, which is built up mainly by heavy contributions from employers and employed, and which is urgently needed to meet the case of those for whom it is properly designed.
The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) is very anxious about what we are going to do in the future with regard to the Appointments Branch, and the other branches of our activities, for carrying out the obligation under which we rest to the ex-service men. Let me tell him what I said on that point. We have made such economies as we have judged possible without prejudicing the interests of those we are charged to help. With this governing consideration in mind, we have consulted
the British Legion at each stage, and we have been most glad of their advice and assistance.
8.0 P.M.
I have got, on the administrative side, to roll up and economise as I can, without doing prejudice to the ex-service men or in any way failing to carry out the obligations under which we all rest to them. As regards the Civil Liabilities and the Appointments Branch as they are now, I shall continue to make such economies on the purely administrative and official sides as I think are reasonable and just and desirable, and which will not do any injury or prejudice to the ex-service men. I hope to have my hon. and gallant Friend's assistance in that. If he says to me that there will be a number of ex-service men who want training or assistance at the hands of the Civil Liabilities Branch, and asks whether there will be any man left without any opportunity of coming to us and asking that we shall redeem the promises we made, I say, "No, there will not be. Whatever machinery is necessary to ensure that the ex-service man gets a square deal will be retained." My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee) wants to know what we are to do with the disabled men. He says there are 29,000 waiting, but many of these are not ready for training yet; they are still under treatment. It was suggested, but not so much by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Woolwich, that we have slowed down in our endeavours on behalf of these men. Nothing of the kind. I tried to explain how we have to pass through the bottle-neck of the local technical advisory committees as to what numbers we can admit. I am making no complaint. The local technical advisory committees look at the state of trade, at the number of men already unemployed, many of them ex-service men, some of them disabled ex-service men, and they say there is no use our passing through a lot of men that we have at our disposal, because that will only lead to unemployment at the other end. The whole of this scheme rests on trade expansion, not on trade contraction. This year we have placed in training during January, February and March 4,200 men, and, as regards the improver-ships we have appointed special canvassers to go round and try to get
improverships for those men. They have got already 3,800. I have asked the employers to take these men as improvers, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Woolwich made a suggestion which I would commend to my hon. Friends opposite. He said: "These Local Technical Advisory Committees tell you the numbers from time to time in each craft who may be admitted. Why do not they take a little more risk? In 18 months from now things cannot be so bad as they are, and they must improve. Why do not they be a little more generous and let more men in now, in the almost certain hope that when the men have finished their training work will be ready for them. I make that appeal myself. There is a risk, but the risk is not so great as the risk which these men ran on the Vimy Ridge, at Beaumont Hamel, at Delville Wood, and all the rest of them. I am sending out a circular in which I will get my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions to join with me in putting that point to the Local Technical Advisory Committees. No craft has done better than the boot and shoe trade, and I am deeply obliged to them, and so are the ex-service men. This circular will be sent to the Local Technical Advisory Committees, and it will be along the lines that they should take a little more risk.

Mr. NAYLOR: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these technical advisory committees find it extremely difficult to place the men after a few weeks at the instructional school?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I know that. If it is suggested that the sort of instruction given induces the employers to refuse to take them, then I would be very glad of the hon. Member's help so that we might make this as perfect a scheme as we can. With regard to trade unions under Section 17 the sum of Is. a week has been held, if I may say so with great respect, to be too much, and the Geddes Committee recommended that the arrangement should be reviewed. In pursuance of my duty I proceeded to review it. I take the recommendations of the Geddes Committee very seriously indeed, as these Estimates ought to show. I have had a report from the Committee recommending that the grant should be reduced and the proposed reduction was stated by me on Thursday. The scale will be a sliding scale which will vary
with the general rate of unemployment. At the minimum rate of unemployment the grant will be at the maximum scale. The rate will be as follows: The rate of unemployment not exceeding 4 per cent., 6d.: exceeding 4 per cent, and not exceeding 8 per cent., fid.; exceeding 8 per cent, and not exceeding 12 per cent., 4d. Exceeding 12 per cent., 3d. That is the scale, but if my hon. Friend will make any representation to me I will be glad to meet him on this matter without committing myself in any way. As regards our staff, the hon. Member for Wood Green suggested that a good deal of this was camouflage and window-dressing. I think he is mistaken in regard to that. I might remind him of an answer I gave on the 5th April, in which I said:
In August last a change of Secretary afforded opportunity to review the controlling posts at the Ministry. There were then a Secretary at £3,000, a Chief Labour Adviser at £3,000, and a second Secretary at £1,350. It was decided to appoint the Secretary at £2,200, to continue the Chief Labour Adviser at £3,000, and to abolish the post of second Secretary. These arrangements effected a saving of £2,150 per annum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April. 1922: col. 2215, Vol. 152.]
Do you call that camouflage and window dressing? It is a real definite saving. I do not know if I need refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton suggested that we gave a kind of turn or lead or suggested certain terms in arbitration proceedings. That is a serious statement to make. If the British people are to get it into their heads that the dice are loaded against them, away goes the whole system of arbitration. Let mo tell him that no instructions under any circumstances are ever given to the arbitrator. I hope he will take the opportunity of putting my strong disclaimer on this point before the person who suggested it to him.

Captain BOWYER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that hundreds of speeches have been made in the course of the last few weeks advocating on behalf of the British Legion that the Government should compulsorily enforce the employment of disabled ex-service men?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The idea is that we should compel employers to employ a
quota of disabled men, but I would far rather rest on the voluntary appeal. It has not done so badly, and I confess that I think the compulsory course or a course of that sort might defeat its own end.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: You might do it on Government contracts.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, of course. My Friend knows that a Government contract could not be given to any firm that is not on the King's Roll. That is not the proposition. The proposition is to make it compulsory throughout the land that firms should employ a certain proportion of disabled ex-service men. I do not think I would like to carry it as far as that. It would defeat its own end.

Mr. NAYLOR: In striking the percentage of unemployed, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to exclude from the total membership the men who are superannuated, apprentices, &c.?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know if I understand; but I will discuss it with my hon. Friend.

Mr. AMMON: I want to make a reference to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Walsall in which he referred to the fact that what we are most interested in is how to prepare in the larger sense to meet the problems that confront us to-day. He said that last year ho made a very fervent appeal to the Ministry and another fervent appeal to the employers of labour, that they might devise ways and means to overcome the temporary difficulties and seek to find employment for those who are out of employment. He then said, or words to that effect, that, despairing of getting any satisfactory solution, he then turned to the Members on these benches, and unfortunately he was afraid that certain economic theories that were held here rather stood in the way of our giving the lead that was necessary.

It being a Quarter past Sight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

RAILWAYS (NORTH WESTERN AND MIDLAND GROUP BILL). [By Order.]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I have no intention of delivering a controversial speech arousing feelings such as perhaps were aroused by speeches delivered a few nights ago. The question to-night is purely a business question between the railway companies on the one side and the great traders of this country on the other. The purpose of the Bill brought in by the London and North Western and Midland Group is to give the railways full powers to run road traffic across the country, in any district to which their system affords access, by means of vehicles drawn by animal, electrical, or other mechanical power for the convenience of merchandise, passengers, and luggage. I understand that since the Bill has been introduced the promoters have agreed to delete the provision with regard to passenger traffic, owing to the opposition of local authorities, who fear interference with the passenger traffic which they at present carry on. It seems to me that this is ridiculous because if it is desirable in the public interest to give powers to carry merchandise it seems to be equally reasonable that they should have powers to carry passengers as well. The fact that carrying passengers might injure local authorities is of no greater importance than the fact that carrying merchandise might injure, not local authorities, but private enterprise.
The next Clause was put in, I cannot help thinking, to placate possible opposition. It proposes that the company is not to be allowed to manufacture any road vehicles which they provide, own, work or use under this Act. That is a Clause which can hardly stand long. If it is desirable that a railway company should own and work a fleet of motor
wagons, logically there is no reason why they should not build them exactly in the same way as they build the locomotives and wagons which they use on the railways. Clearly this Clause also was put in with a view to stopping serious objection that might be made against this Bill. It has been suggested by the promoters of the Bill, who have given the House of Commons a good deal of literature on the subject during the last few weeks, that these powers are already possessed by some of the railways, and that therefore logically they must be possessed by all. These powers were granted to three railway companies practically before road traffic, as it exists at present, had taken possession of the road. In the very early days for some reason the Great Eastern Railway Company in 1904, the North Eastern Company in 1905, and the North Staffordshire in 1906 applied to Parliament, when they were promoting Bills on other subjects, for a Clause, which was passed practically sub silentio without objection on the part of the House, giving them powers to run road motor traffic. Those powers have been practically unused up to this time, though a certain amount has been done by the North Eastern Company. Apart from that, in the years 1906, 1911, and 1913, three other railway companies applied to this House to have the same powers granted to them, and those powers were refused by the House. So, as far as precedent is concerned, there are three precedents on on side giving powers to use these road vehicles, and three precedents on the other side, in later years when Parliament in its wisdom declined to give these powers That is the position up to last year when a Clause was inserted in one of the Railway Acts, but was ruled out of Order by you, as not being within the purview of the title of the Bill.
Now this North Western Group comes to Parliament and asks for powers to run these fleets of motor vehicles on the roads. The capital of this group, which is proposing under this Bill to take these powers, I believe is over £500,000,000 sterling. The railway companies during the last two years have been amalgamated into four huge groups, each with a very large section of capital, and assuming that the powers now asked for were given to other railway companies—because if this Bill is passed the other railway com-
panies will ask for she same powers and there is no reason why they should not get them—then you will have these huge collections of capital controlled by companies which have been instituted under charter by Parliament for the purpose of running traffic on rails and carrying on the business of railway companies in the ordinary acception of the term, put at the disposal of a competing system of road transport, and it is impossible to imagine any ordinary capitalist who conducts motor transport on the road who could possibly stand up against a concern of such enormous capital as one of these railway groups. That is a very strong reason why this House, which is always jealous of the powers of great corporations being extended, should think not once or twice, but more than twice, before giving to the railway companies these great powers which must have the effect, if they are successful, of running the small men off the road.
The railway companies at present have full power to run road vehicles in connection with the railways. They can collect goods to be carried by rail, and they can deliver goods that have come by rail, by motor or other traction as much as they like. As I understand the present position of the law, there is no reason why a railway company should not extend the radius of collection or delivery to 20, 30, 50 or even a greater number of miles if it is desired. But what is proposed in this Bill is different. It is proposed to establish a service for the carriage of goods which have not gone and will never go on the railway at all, but which will be carried exclusively by a new system of road transport which will be in competition with existing road transport companies and with the railways themselves. The claim is made by the railway companies that they pay very large road rates and are therefore entitled to use the roads for this purpose. But I want the House to remember that all railway traffic, except a very small portion, goes over the road. Goods which come from the factories are taken by road to the railways and get on to the roads again and are delivered by road. I think that many people do not realise the enormous tonnage of goods carried by the railways which at some time or another, between collection and delivery, go over some or other of the roads of the country.
But it must be remembered that the railway companies do not pay quite the same rates as the other people of the country. In 1913 the railway companies paid 7.2 per cent. of the highway rates of the country. In 1920 they paid 6.3 per cent. Their rating, in proportion to that of the rest of the community, has gone down. While the increase in local rates payable by you and me and by other people in the country has gone up during the last seven or eight years by 110 per cent., the increase of rates paid by the railways has been only 95 per cent. Those figures I am open to justify if anyone challenges them. I believe they are correct for they were given in evidence not long ago. Why do the railway companies seek these powers? Is it not that, because of the way in which the railway companies are being conducted at the present moment and the high rates they are charging to the traders of the country, they cannot get the traffic and they are losing it to those who carry it more cheaply by road? The railway companies' rates have been raised twice since the War, once just after the Armistice and again last year. Evidence was given before the Railway Rates Commission as to the probable effect of diverting traffic from the railways to the road. Sir Francis Gore-Browne, the Chairman of the Railway Rates Commission, said:
This shows that the railway companies have to fear competition from road transport.
And he made this remarkable further statement:
It is a little consoling to us customers, because we feel that the competition which the road sets up will probably give us a very fine railway service shortly.
That is exactly what it is doing. In 1916 there were 600 road transport undertakings; to-day there are 3,000. They have a capital of over £100,000,000, though I believe there is no road transport undertaking with a capital of more than £1,500,000, which, of course, is very small compared with the huge aggregation of capital possessed by any one of the railway groups. There are 600,000 men employed in commercial road transport at the present time. Are the railway companies proposing to establish this competition with themselves in order to bring down railway rates, in order to make it better for the consumer and the manufacturer in this country, or are they
proposing to establish a road transport system with a view ultimately to knocking out the small man and having a monopoly of the trade. That is the question to be decided. Let me put before the House the actual rates now in operation. Here are a few:

London to Bristol, by rail 59s. 4d. per ton, by road 43s. 9d. per ton.
London to Birmingham, by rail 56s. 10d. per ton, by road 45s. per ton.
London to Brighton, by rail 39s.7d.per ton, by road 31s. per ton.
London to Southampton, by rail 51s.8d. per ton, by road 39s. 6d. per ton.
London to Salisbury, by rail 52s. 11d. per ton, by road 32s. per ton.
Those figures are supplied by a great London distributing house, Messrs. Lipton's, who are to-day paying the rates mentioned by road because they find that, roughly speaking, the rates are from 10s. to 12s. per ton cheaper. Are the railway companies proposing to put armies of motor lorries on the road in order to compete with the road traffic and to carry commercial tonnage at the prices quoted for road transport? The effect of that would be still further to destroy the ability of the railway companies to make dividends for their shareholders. For instance, is the London and North "Western Railway Company proposing to take goods by road to Birmingham for 11s. less per ton than that now charged by rail? I cannot conceive it to be possible. If it be not possible, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the railway companies want to get this new power in order to establish these systems and to bring their rates down below the existing level until such time as they have run the existing motor transport people off the road. Then the manufacturers and distributors of the country will find that they have no alternative before them, no competition with the railways, and the railway companies will say, "There is our railway rate and there is our road rate. Take whichever you like. If you do not like either you must leave it."
An Amendment, I understand, is on the Paper in favour of the appointment of a Royal Commission. I have not the slightest objection to a Royal Commission examining the proposals of the railway companies. That would be a very reasonable arrangement. But it is
only fair to tell the House that a rather strong Committee of the Ministry of Transport was set up last year by my right hon. Friend Sir Eric Geddes, and it took a large amount of evidence. There were a majority report and a minority report. The majority report was signed by Mr. Hughes, who represented the Association of British Chambers of Commerce; Mr. Currington, of the Federation of British Industries: Mr. Dutfield, of the National Alliance of Commercial Road Transport Associations; and Mr. Shrapnell-Smith, representing the Commercial Motor Users' Association. Those four men brought in a majority report against the railway proposals. It is true there was a minority report in favour of the railway companies' proposals. But who were the gentlemen who composed the minority report? Not members of the Association of Chambers of Commerce or of the Federation of British Industries, but two general managers and——

Major HAMILTON: And not members of the Motor Users' Association.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No; two of the majority were connected with motor associations and two of them were perfectly independent, one of them representing the Association of Chambers of Commerce. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport is present, and he will say whether those two gentlemen, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Currington, had anything to do with road transport, and he will tell us whether they were appointed at the request of the Minister of Transport by the two very representative bodies I have mentioned.

Major HAMILTON: The Federation of British Industries is opposed to you.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly mistaken in that respect. One day last week there was a meeting upstairs of Members of Parliament. Over 500 were invited. I had the honour of presiding. A representative of the Federation of British Industries explained to that meeting that he was there at the request of the Council of the Federation, and represented that body, and he said that the Federation was entirely opposed to the powers proposed under this Bill. There is no doubt whatever about that. Many hon. Members
were present at the meeting. I will read two sentences from the two Reports of the Committee which examined the matter. I do not ask the House to say that the Majority Report was not biassed by two Members who signed it; I want to be perfectly fair. The Majority Report says:
The evidence which has been put before us by those connected with large federations of traders has been unanimously to the effect that if railway companies were given the powers they seek there would inevitably be immediate and unequal competition between them and the independent carriers by road, and that the result of that competition would, owing to the fact that railway companies are very powerful and rich corporations, be the extinction of the independent road transport.
More remarkable than that is paragraph 13 in the Report of the Minority—the Railway Report—by Mr. Balfour Browne, K. C, who was an eminent counsel and made a vast fortune mainly by acting for the companies—we all knew him quite well by his appearances in Committee upstairs—and two railway managers. These gentlemen, necessarily pro-railway, inserted this Clause:
If the railway companies were given general powers to carry goods by road, and were allowed a free hand to compete with ordinary carriers by road, that would, in our view, probably result, as many of the witnesses fear, in such unequal competition as would drive the independent carriers oil the road and bring about a railway monopoly.
That is the view of two railway managers. It is perfectly true—and I wish to be quite fair—that they go on to propose certain safeguards, as to the way in which the accounts shall be audited, whereby separate accounts are to be kept of the rail transport and of road transport. I suggest that it is almost impossible to differentiate between accounts in regard to rail transport and those in regard to road transport. How difficult it would be to get the exact cost of running a motor vehicle, and of seeing how much of the general charges were attributable to the road service and how much to the railway service.

Major HAMILTON: Why?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am certain it will be most difficult. There are terminal charges and standing charges and officials, and who is going to decide how much of these are attributable to each form of transport? Who is going to apportion the general manager's salary,
and to decide how much of it is attributable to the road, and how much to the rail? It would involve a most intricate system of accounts. There are, I believe, 8,000,000 separate railway rates at the present time. Is the unfortunate Rates Tribunal, which is now trying to settle these railway rates also to settle the road rates applying to an infinite number of towns, which will be a far more difficult matter than attempting to settle railway rates at the present time. I believe the railway companies are offering a suggestion that these rates should be fixed somewhat on the same lines as the railway rates, but that there should be power to vary these rates in exceptional instances, by a minimum of five per cent, and a maximum of 40 per cent. That means that any road rate run by a railway company may be altered in exceptional oases by an amount as high as 40 per cent. It means that railway companies running road transport who are up against active competition on the road, will be enabled, in order to get rid of that competition, to make an exceptional rate at any time they like for any particular job. They are doing it at the present-moment. I have here a statement presented to the Great Eastern Company by the United Automobile Service Company at Lowestoft. That company states in a letter dated 4th April, 1922, which they have forwarded to me:
Quite recently the Board of Fisheries at Lowestoft found that the rates charged for conveyance by road vehicles were lower than the railway rates. They therefore transferred their business to the road vehicles. Subsequently the railway company came in and quoted an exceptional rate which was better than ours. Their representative stated that the railway companies could look after their own interests, and were going to quote competitive rates against the road traffic.

Major HAMILTON: That is what the trader wants.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is what the trader wants—that is the short view.

HON. MEMBERS: The long view!

Mr. G. TERRELL: The Great Eastern have the powers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They are now quoting competitive railway rates against roads in order to get traffic. I am not saying it is not legitimate—I am only pointing out that they do this in the green tree, and I am asking what will
they do in the dry I What will they do when they get road transport? I give another instance. A Lowestoft firm of printers desired to send 3½ tons of paper to Norwich. The road company charged 40s. per ton, which was cheaper than the railway. The railway company at once came along and quoted 30s. 8d. I am not saying they were not right, but, again, it was an exceptional rate such as they are entitled to make. I can give another instance of a similar case, where a railway company said they were prepared to quote an exceptional rate until they had got it below the cost of the road transport. That is a position which, I submit to the House, is bound to recur. From their point of view they are justified in making exceptional rates, and an exceptional rate is one which gets behind the standard rate authorised by the Rates Tribunal. Under the proposals of this Bill, they are to have power to make exceptional rates at any time they like. Quite obviously, they will say to the customer, "Here is our road transport organisation. We will give you an exceptional rate, lower than anything you can get from the ordinary road hauler." That is all right, if hon. Members of this House are prepared to take the short view. Taking the short view, it is probable that there will be during the next few years keen competition on the road, and a lower rate for the carriage of goods. But the moment the railway companies, with their vast organisation, their huge aggregations of capital, have got the road hauler off the road, then the position of the manufacturer and the trader of this country will be much worse than it was before. [HON. MEMBERS: "The canals!"] I hear some hon. Member mentioning the canals. I will not take time to describe how the railway companies dealt with the canals.
We have got to consider the commerce of the country. It is not necessary to say that I have no interest, direct or indirect, in commercial road transport at all. In fact, if I have any interest in this matter it is that I am a shareholder in the London and North Western Railway Company, which is one of the promoters of the Bill. Therefore I am speaking and I am going to Vote against my own railway company. I ask the House to consider whether it is desirable to put these great powers into the hands of the rail-
way companies or whether it is not desirable, in the interests of the traders and of the country, to keep the one and only competitive form of traffic there is to-day, against the crushing burden of the railway rates. Railway rates have gone up since the War by, I think, 110 per cent. The only possible means of getting them down and of getting easier transport for the commerce of the community, is by means of these road rates, which I have quoted. I suggest that it is essential in the interests of the trade and commerce of the country that we should keep the competitive form of transport, that the railways should be kept to their own, and that they should be encouraged, nay more, compelled to put their own house in order, improve their own systems, and bring their own rates down, and have legitimate competition with road travelling rather than what would be illegitimate competition forced along by their huge capital and huge organisations.

Mr. G. ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I ask the House to say it is inexpedient to grant the very wide powers sought in this Bill by this group of railway companies. We must realise that if these powers be sanctioned to-night, they must of necessity be extended to every railway company in turn. It is quite true that opposition to the Bill has been met to a certain extent by the powers originally sought for the conveyance of passenger traffic having been deleted. Nevertheless it is just as well to bear in mind the fact that some of the railways have not so withdrawn this claim. The Scottish companies still maintain that they should have, and are asking for, powers for the conveyance of both passenger and goods traffic. Certainly, if these powers be granted, we shall have Bills up in succeeding Sessions reminding us that having granted permission for the conveyance of merchandise it is illogical to refuse it in respect of general passenger traffic. I agree with my hon. Friend that we are entitled to apprehend that the railway companies here are seeking to establish a monopoly, and although they have offered a certain safeguard I believe that if we give these powers monopoly is inherent in the circumstances. With their enormous capital and with the powers that they possess, no safeguards can be I devised which will prevent railway com-
panies, if they are so minded, from offering rates below the actual figure at which other companies could carry goods along the roads. I agree that that is immediately beneficial. I am aware of the two cases cited by my hon. Friend, because they occurred in the district in which I reside and relate to the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and it has been put to me that this is one illustration of the benefit that would be conferred upon the community were railways invested with the powers they are seeking, but the fact is that if they were allowed to operate along those lines, if they could quote rates less than the actual cost of carriage along the roads, they must drive every competitor oft the roads and thereby secure a monopoly, and I do not know, having regard to railway history, whether we are entitled to place the interests of trade and of commerce entirely in their hands when they have secured a monopoly.
I object to this Bill too because it does not set forth in any way the sort of vehicle that will be utilised, the weights that are to be carried, or the roads that are to be used, and for my part I feel that the roads of the country are already too congested, and I am not concerned to divert more heavy traffic upon them. Here the railway companies will have every inducement to divert traffic to the roads because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the general public have to pay the major cost of keeping up these roads, and I feel that the railway companies ought, as a result of the decision of this House, to be induced to concentrate their resources and their enterprise on the development of their legitimate business, which is the carriage of passengers and goods along steel rails. Those are the powers conferred upon them by Parliament, and I believe it is their proper function. I have not been a very keen critic of the railways, because of the fact that, whilst at the Board of Trade. I saw the marvels they were able to effect during the War. I believe they rose to the emergency with remarkable credit, and therefore I have never been a mere captious critic of the railways. I believe that they have performed their work very well, but there is enormous room for improvement, and if they were to respond to the request that is now being made and reduce their rates, I believe they
would find that they would be able to attract back a good deal of the traffic that has presently got on to the roads. A great point is made that they are losing much traffic, but I am reminded that in the year 1920, up to the 30th September, prior to the great depression in trade setting in, they were able to boast of a record haulage, and I am not, therefore, convinced that they are losing much traffic simply by the competition of road services. I am sure that, with their enormous resources, they could attract back a good deal of that traffic if they were to concentrate on improving the services, reducing the rates, and extending facilities to the community.
It may have been observed that I have an Amendment on the Paper. As I said this afternoon, I have seen so much from the inside that I am less inclined than ever to dogmatise upon any case, and I am not even prepared to-night to say that at no time and under no circumstances should the railways have access to the roads, but I am convinced that under present conditions this House ought not to give the railways the powers they are asking for to-night. The roads of the country are not adapted to the heavy traffic which would be placed upon them if the railways got these powers to-night. As the hon. Member who represents the Ministry of Transport told us the other day, of the 177,300 miles of roads in Great Britain, only 22,000 miles are classified as first-class roads, and it is only those roads that are so constructed as to carry the heavy traffic which would be put upon them by the railway companies. To-night, whilst taking up that position, I want to offer a few observations in support of a thorough and comprehensive survey of the whole problem of road and rail transport. That is to say, I would prefer, rather than that we should have to deal with the subject in the form of a private Bill, that we should first of all have the guidance of a thoroughly representative Commission, which would go fully into the whole case, not from the point of view of the railways, or even of the commercial interests, but from the point of view of the general public well-being.
My hon. Friend has alluded to the fact that the subject has recently been inquired into. There it is. It occurred very much as we might have expected. In the
Minority Report two railway representatives reported in favour of the railway companies having the powers they are now seeking, and they, of course, told us that safeguards could be devised. They recognised that safeguards were necessary, but we know that in dealing with these big corporations it is extremely difficult to safeguard public interests. Then we got four members issuing the Majority Report. I do not know whether two or more were biased—I am not concerned with that—but the result was very much what we anticipated. Then, in respect of the Labour representative, he took the line that the whole subject ought to be dealt with from the public point of view. We knew his position, and we know that he prefers these services should be socialised. For my own part, I think there, is a good deal of logic and justification in that attitude. If the result must be, as I conceive, the creation of a huge transport monopoly in the country, then, in my opinion, the country is perfectly entitled to see that it is in a thorough position to control it.
I want to make one or two observations from the point of view of the local authorities. I know an hon. and learned Friend intends to deal with it from that point of view, but I am requested by the Municipal Tramways Corporation to make one or two points on their behalf. The tramways of the country are subjected to very heavy charges for the maintenance of roads. Under the Road Boards a tramway authority is not regarded as a road authority and receives none of the grants, although the purpose of the grants is to assist in the cost of maintaining the roads, but I am advised that the tramway authorities are suffering very severely because of the increased charges imposed upon them through the effect of heavy vehicular traffic over their surfaces.
I attended a conference at Salford in September last, and there the manager of a municipal tramway service made this statement, that it cost them, on the average, £505 per car for the maintenance of their route. In another case the sum was stated to be £525. I think these authorities are perfectly entitled to ask that Parliament, before allowing additional heavy traffic upon the road which will in all probability add to the burdens which are already so oppressive upon them, should make the subject one of thorough
inquiry with a view to adjusting the burden so that those who cause the greatest damage to the road should be those who have to bear the heaviest burden. After all, we know there is much lamentation about the way in which local rates have risen. My hon. Friend who represents the Ministry of Transport, told us the other day that the amount of licence duty collected during the past year was about £8,500,000.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): £11,000,000.

Mr. ROBERTS: Well, £11,000,000. At the same time, I think he informed us that £50,000,000 was spent in the same period on the maintenance of the roads of the country. Whether it be £11,000,000 or not, it means that the ratepayers of the country are thereby carrying an enormous burden, and I respectfully submit that we should run no risk of adding to that burden until we have been able to devise means whereby it is placed upon the shoulders of those who ought to bear it. My hon. Friend who keeps intervening has now interpolated that the railway companies are the largest ratepayers in the country. That may be so, but, at the same time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham pointed out, they also reap some of the larger benefits. He could not have heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, who pointed out that a greater part of the merchandise that is carried by railways has, first of all, to be carried to the stations over roads, and subsequently, of course, over other roads to its destination. But I am informed—and I would not have used this point but for the interruption—that when the Public Health Act of 1375 was passed, the railways companies' position was that they made little use of the roads, and for that reason were specially exempted from 75 per cent, of the total amount of the general district rate, which includes the cost of road maintenance. Therefore, I do submit that a case has been made out for a further consideration of the matter.
9.0 P.M.
Let me give one further illustration, and then I will resume my seat. I had my attention directed the other day to what has occurred in the Manchester and Liverpool district. This district is served by three railways, and, of course, by the Ship Canal. In 1913, only 15 mechanically
propelled vehicles passed along the road from Manchester to Liverpool, but last year, 1921, 2,500,000 tons of merchandise was carried over that road. The point I want to make clear is this. The ratepayers in that district are now carrying a charge in this year of £10,000 per mile in the reconstruction and maintenance of the roads over which this heavy traffic passes. I want to repeat, even at the risk of being charged with repetition, that you will observe in my Amendment I do not say that at no time, and under no circumstances, should railways have access to the roads, but I do say that before such powers are conferred, a thorough inquiry ought to be instituted, and that conditions should be laid down by Statute, as in the case of tramways, railways and other companies—conditions which will really safeguard all the interests affected by such a Bill as this.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not before the House.

Mr. ROBERTS: I realise that. I have seconded the Motion for the rejection in order that I might get my chance. I wish the Amendment brought before the House if any means can be devised. It has been represented to me daring the afternoon and evening that there are a number of Members who would prefer to vote for that Amendment, rather than the direct Motion for the rejection, but, of course, my hon. Friend does not like that, and I shall have to leave the House to decide whether that can be arranged. I, of course, simply comply with the ordinary rules of the House. But to complete my point. Until a general Statute has been enacted, thoroughly protecting all the interests concerned, I respectfully submit to this House that a Second Reading ought not to be given to a Bill of this character.

Mr. HANNON: I am sure the House will sympathise with me in following the two eloquent, argumentative speeches which have been delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts). Listening to those speeches, the House will have felt that there is no case for this Bill. I hope to show, before I sit down, that there is a
case for the Bill, and that the safeguards which the railway companies have offered to provide amply take care of the interests of the public, when this Bill becomes law. Only late this afternoon did I know that I should have to undertake this speech in support of the Bill My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills), who is unfortunately unwell, was to have spoken in support of the Bill, and he, as an experienced Parliamentary hand, would naturally have done much fuller justice to this big project than I can possibly do. This Bill, I hope, will be regarded by the House from the point of view of the national interest, from the point of view of the benefits which will be conferred upon the public at large, and not be biased by any consideration involving sectional or limited interests at the instance of any part of the community. I have had a great deal to do in the last four or five years with industrial questions, and I assure the House that under no circumstances would I be a party to supporting this Bill if I were not satisfied that the Bill would materially contribute to the promotion of industrial interests, rather than, as suggested by my hon. and right hon. Friends, retard it.
I should like to point out at the outset that the legal position of the railways in this country and the organisation of road traffic transport has been very vague up to the present time, as has been already indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks). This Bill aims at definitely settling once and for all the relationship between the railway companies and road transport. I admit at once the contention of my hon. Friend that if these powers are given to the promoters of the present Bill they must necessarily be extended, in time, to all the other great routes in the kingdom. I believe the extension of these powers to these groups, instead of operating against the interests of the traders, will be entirely to the advantage of the traders. My hon. Friend said that only in a certain few instances were powers to operate road motor vehicles conferred upon railway companies. I find that no less than nine railway companies have from time to time, in various-provisions of their Acts received these powers. Parliament, which has devolved upon the railway companies of this country, by the Act of last year, certain
definite obligations, must not now be a party, having given the power to one group to operate road motor traffic, deny these powers to the other groups which now ask for it.
Take, for example, the position of the Great Eastern Railway. The Great Eastern Railway Company secured these powers by Section 41 of the Act of 1904. The Great Eastern Railway becomes now the biggest part of the Great Northern group, and as a component part of that group its powers are extended to the other component parts. Is Parliament, therefore, to be a party to giving these powers to the Great Eastern and the other component railways in the Great Northern group, and denying them to the North Western and Midland and other groups? The promoters of this Bill have, since the Measure was first considered here, made substantial modifications in its original provisions. First of all, they have decided not to carry passengers. I think that ought to meet the objections which have been lodged and urged against the Measure by the municipal corporations and the promoters of tramway undertakings. I should like to say, with reference to the observation which fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Roberts), that the Western Scottish group, in the Bill it is promoting, and which will come before this House, have decided to drop their scheme for carrying passenger traffic; I hope that fact will be remembered by the House, and also that the railway companies have further agreed not to manufacture their own road vehicles. When this matter was first considered by certain of the groups of industrial leaders of private enterprise with whom I am identified that was one of the serious obstacles offered to the acceptance of the Bill. On the situation being represented to the promoters of the Bill they agreed to allow the private enterprise to operate for the railways in the construction of the motor vehicles—that that should be continued without interference.
It has been said that the railways have been endowed by Parliament with powers for the purpose only of carriage by rail. My right hon. Friend in his beautiful peroration pointed out the conveyance of traffic on steel rails; but why should the railway company, in these days of perfection, be limited to the
conveyance of traffic on the steel rails. If by extending its traffic operations outside it contributes substantially to the material and economic progress of the community? It is an extraordinary position to take up here at this period of the 20th century to say that a railway corporation, discharging essential services to the community, is to be limited by—if I may respectfully say so—the prejudices of private enterprises outside. I am very sorry my hon. Friend submitted to the House a proposition of this kind, because no right hon. or hon. Member of this House is, I am sure, so anxious to promote expansion in every way in the economic progress of the country. You want to limit a railway company—and it is so easy in this House and outside to work prejudice against a railway company—you want, I say, to limit the railway company to the mere function of conveying traffic over their own steel rails. It is suggested that there ought to be a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole scheme of rail transport and road transport and submit proposals to the House. There have been many commissions dealing with transport problems in this country. I do not see how that proposal can be seriously commended to the consideration of Parliament in view of the fact that all legislation affecting railways for years has been by means of private Bills, and that we are now seeking by a similar process to secure to this North Western and Midland group powers already conferred by previous private Bills by this House.
I find myself reluctantly in opposition this evening to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), for we are very old friends outside this House. I have the greatest personal regard for him, for I am indebted to him for many kindnesses both inside and outside the House. I therefore feel my position more keenly in being in opposition to him. But his contention is that there is not a sufficient safeguard. He accepts the temporary quality of the safeguard, but says the safeguard suggested in relation to the measure is not of that permanent character which his economic sense will allow him to accept as a sound common-sense policy. Let me point out that in Clause 6 of the Bill it is provided:
Subject to the provisions of this Act a company may demand and take such reasonable rates and charges as they think fit in
respect of traffic conveyed under the powers of this Act. The provisions of Part 111 of the Railways Act, 1921, shall, so far as applicable, apply to such rates and charges, and the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 to 1894, as to affording all reasonable facilities and as to undue preference shall apply to such traffic.
In regard to the operation of the Act in relation to the provisions of the Railways Act of last year, the promoters of the Bill are making the first step forward in safeguarding the interests of the public. The Bill also proposes in bringing this road traffic under the operation of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act to allow the Railway Commission to determine in all cases whether there are reasonable facilities provided or whether any undue preference is offered. In Clause 7 of the Ball this provision is laid down:
The Company shall provide in their form of accounts furnished under the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, an abstract of revenue and expenditure in respect of traffic conveyed under the powers of this Act.
This group of companies is prepared to embody in the Schedule to the Bill safeguards on these lines, and it provides that the revenue, the expenditure and the capital invested in relation to road transport must be kept apart from the accounts relating to transport on the rails. More than that, the promoters are willing to insert a Clause in the Bill providing that the standard charges for the conveyance of the same class of goods by rail and by road shall be the same. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has quoted differential charges by rail, but it is now proposed, subject to the right of the Railways Act of last year, to grant exceptional rates not less than 5 per cent, nor more than 40 per cent, below standard charges, all such rates to be reviewed by the Rates Tribunal if the Minister of Transport thinks they are likely to prejudice any class of users or prejudice the standard revenue which the railway companies earn. With these provisions I think the interests of the public will be amply protected.
In order to thoroughly safeguard the interests of the public we give a further concession. We are prepared to accept a provision to enable the Railway Commissioners to require a discontinuance of road transport services under the Bill if it is not in the public interest. Every
possible protection is to be inserted in the Bill with the full concurrence of the promoters in Committee upstairs. My hon. Friend has spoken about £500,000,000 of capital and the dominant influence to be exercised on the roads by these corporations as soon as they have wiped out of existence the smaller undertakings. I would like to point out that it is not at all outside the bounds of possibility that great road monopolies may be created entirely apart from the railway companies, and I would like to suggest to my hon. Friend and to the House that the best possible course this House can take to safeguard the traders of the country and the carrying public is to take care that there is a monopoly which is conducted and controlled by the State with every provision made by this House, because that is preferable to a monopoly which has no statutory control of any kind. I would like to point out that under these provisions the railway group is not in the least degree interfering with the small private road transport undertakings, because, subject to the approval of the Rates Tribunal, separate accounts are to be kept and every device is inserted to safeguard the public. The private undertaker can go on the road as he pleases and charge such rates as he pleases and undercut the railways as much as he likes.
In the opposition to this Measure at the instance of municipalities, the question has been raised that the railway companies should pay a substantial part of the cost of maintaining the roads. Who is to measure and decide what provision can be inserted to determine the proportion which a railway company ought to pay? It is impossible to devise any satisfactory or workable provision of that kind. It has been admitted by my right hon. Friend that the railway companies do contribute substantially towards the upkeep of the roads of this country. Last year over £2,000,000 out of the £10,000,000 contributed by railway companies, in the shape of rates, was paid for road mending. If you ask the railway companies to pay £10,000,000 in rates, including £2,000,000 for the maintenance of the roads, it is an untenable position to say that those corporations have no right to take part in the organisation of motor transport in connection with their own undertakings.
My hon. Friend paid a tribute to the magnificent work which the railway companies, from their chairmen and general managers down to the humblest railway servant, performed during the War. Every member of the community acknowledges the enormous usefulness of the highly developed transport system which was organised on the railway in regard to mobilisation and the transport of supplies and munitions during the War. The past history of the railways gives ample reasons for the House conferring these powers upon this railway group to organise transport, in order to bring to their own railways a larger volume of traffic which will enable them to reduce railway rates by the reduction of their own overhead charges. The reduction of the railway rates ought to be the prime consideration of the railway companies, but unless they get more traffic to carry they cannot reduce their rates, and it is only by facilitating a great scheme of this kind, which will widen the area of their operations for the receipt and delivery of goods, that you can help the railway companies to achieve that much desired object. It has been urged, though the matter has not been referred to by my hon. Friend, that a national danger arising out of this proposal is an alliance between railway workers and transport workers to defeat the public interest at a time of national crisis. The relationship at present between those two organisations is sufficiently strong to operate effectively if they wanted to do so at any time in the future. I have no fear whatever myself, in view of the patriotic position railway servants took up during the War and, above all, in view of the peaceful attitude which railway servants have now taken up with regard to the present economic position of the country, that any exigency of that kind will arise.
Then the story of the canals is constantly quoted. I do not think the House ought to attach much importance to the story of the canals. The same arguments were urged to-day as were urged in the 'thirties and 'forties to prevent the construction of railways because they were injuring the canals. This Measure, although it has been represented as being supported by representative Chambers of
Commerce, has a very large number opposed to it. Included in the number are Manchester, Coventry, Widnes, Bury, Newport, Northampton, Oldham, Bradford, and Leeds. Although in my political speeches I am never particularly fond of quoting Manchester as an example of profound economic policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am glad to be able to urge that on the consideration of the House in support of this Bill. I believe this Measure is one of great national importance, and if only the House understood the carefully-considered provisions which are being inserted in it to safeguard the public, they would, almost without a vote, send this Bill to a Committee, where all its pros and cons could be carefully examined, and from which we hope it will emerge as a Measure calculated to do immense good in the constructive work of re-organising the transport system of the country.

Mr. NEAL: I think the House will be unanimous in one thing, namely, that it would be extremely difficult to find a private Bill which raises greater issues of national importance than the Bill under consideration now. It does, in fact, raise the whole question of the relationship of railways to the traffic of this country, other than that which is strictly confined to traffic upon railways. I would remind the House that this application, coupled with the Bill of the Scottish companies, would empower the whole of the railway companies who will form the Western group to run road traffic for goods without restriction of area from the North of Scotland to the Thames. The only company within that group which at present possesses those powers is the North Staffordshire Company, but if you compare them with the group which will be their competitors, namely, the Eastern group, those powers are already possessed by the Great Northern of Scotland, by the North Eastern and by the Great Eastern. They are not exactly the same powers, because they vary in private Acts that were obtained, but powers analogous to these are possessed by those companies. The companies which have not those powers in that group would be the North British and the Great Northern, but I think it is reasonably clear that, with extended powers in the Great Northern of Scotland, the North Eastern and the Great Eastern, they would be
able substantially to run road services over the whole area covered by the group. I further agree that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Parliament to refuse these powers to any other companies who sought them if permission is given for this Bill to become law. Up till 1906 it seems to have been the policy of Parliament to grant these powers. Since 1906 three private Bills have been promoted by companies which have either been defeated or withdrawn in face of opposition.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) had upon the Order Paper an Amendment which he has not moved, suggesting a comprehensive inquiry into the master. I would submit to him that the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill would afford an opportunity before a Select Committee of this House for a full inquiry into the matter, if, indeed, it has not already been sufficiently inquired into. There was a Committee to which reference has been made, presided over by that distinguished and great lawyer, the late Mr. Balfour Browne, which does really give guidance to the House upon this question. It has been suggested—I am sure not unkindly to the memory of one of our most distinguished lawyers—that he was in some sense biased, unconsciously no doubt, towards railways, but I would like to say in answer to that that Mr. Balfour Browne's name for service upon this Committee was selected by Sir Eric Geddes from the panel upon which he had been placed as the nominee of the Federation of British Industries. The Committee, I hope and believe, although it was well representative of the interests concerned, applied its mind, as I am sure the Chairman did, impartially to the consideration of the topic, and if Members really weighed the divergent reports they would see that the divergence is more apparent than real. The Chairman with two general managers of railways expressed the view in favour of these powers being given to railway companies subject—and I quote their words—to various restrictions and conditions. The four Members who signed the Majority Report, who included two distinguished representatives of the motoring industry, came to the conclusion that it was impossible to find conditions and restrictions which would prevent certain evils arising. Therefore, the issue between the two
branches of the Committee seems to me to turn upon this question and this question only: Aye or no, is it possible to find some machinery whereby evils may be prevented if these powers are granted? The remaining member of the Committee besides my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who, amidst his very many occupations, was not able to attend the meetings, and therefore did not sign the Report, was Mr. Ben Smith, of the United Vehicle Workers, who expressed a view in favour of the nationalisation of all transport agencies, but also shared the doubt whether it was possible so to safeguard these powers as to make them short of a monopoly.
What is the case put by the railway companies? They say they are losing traffic to the roads, and they mention a figure of 6,000,000 tons as having been lost in the year 1921. I would not advise the House to attach too much importance to that figure from any point of view. In the first place it represents a very small fraction of the 320,000,000 tons which was something like the total volume of traffic carried by the railways during that year, and in the second place there is no doubt that the high railway rates which prevailed during 1921 had the natural tendency of driving traffic to a competitive form of transport and of producing the results mentioned by my hon. Friend in moving the rejection of this Bill, namely, that the road transport agencies were able to carry at a substantially less sum than the railway charges of the day. The railway companies further say that they are in an anomalous position, as some companies already have these powers and some have not. A legal question arises as to whether, when the groups are complete, powers which are inherent in some member of the group will become common to the whole body, whether they will be in the position of having the powers within a limited area of their domain and in another area not having them, or whether they will be in the position of the Eastern and Western Groups that, one, having so much larger an area than the other, would be able practically to cover the country with this traffic while the other would be restrained from doing so. They further point out the convenience to customers. There is no doubt that road transport has a definite advantage over railway traffic. It is door-to-
door traffic, it limits the opportunities for pilfering, it limits the handling of the goods in loading and unloading. The railway companies further say that if they had this alternative mode of carrying their traffic, it would afford them an opportunity of relieving the congestion during periods of high pressure owing to good trade and that they make a substantial contribution to the rates.
What are the objections which are taken? It is said that these powerful organisations with large capital, and with means of organisation which have sprung up under Statute for certain definite purposes, are seeking to extend their operations outside the ambit of the powers which Parliament intended them to have, and the effect will be to cripple, if not to kill, the existing road transport organisations which have sprung up in recent times as useful and convenient competitors of the railways. It is said that possibly the larger road transport companies might combine with the railway companies, but that the smaller ones might be squeezed out. It is pointed out that, taking the short and narrow view, you might get an immediate competition with advantageous rates, but that, after a longer period, you would have established monopolistic conditions disastrous to trade. It is said also that the road transport industry is a young industry growing rapidly and with a great future before it, and that you would discourage the progress of that industry if you admitted the railway companies into competition. Then it is said by the road authorities that the railway companies do not pay enough for the upkeep of the roads and that they will be putting an unfair charge on the rates. There was a suggestion in the Report, which has not found utterance in the speeches made to-day, and I am glad of that, that if you permit this monopoly to grow up or if you give the railway companies these powers then you must watch very closely my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), because he will get all the labour people into his hands, and then woe betide the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby does not appear to me to be such a terrifying character as that, and I can therefore dismiss it in these few words.
How do the companies say that they can meet these objections? I think every
Member of this House will agree that the companies at least have made a bonâ fide attempt at meeting the objections which are taken. They say, "We can protect you against improper charges by applying the machinery of the Railways Act, 1921." I am not sure that they can. Part III of the Railways Act may make it possible to apply modifications to road transport, but I desire to reserve my absolute independence of judgment on that point. Just consider for a moment what Part III of the Railways Act is. It is a scheme for setting up standard charges for railway traffic between fixed points over a determined route and having some relationship to the cost of carrying that traffic by vehicles upon rails. It may be a totally improper standard to apply to the carriage of goods between undefined points over undefined routes and at a totally different cost, namely, the cost of carding goods by mechanically propelled vehicles on the roads as compared with steam-hauled traffic on the railways. They say, too, that they desire that the Railway Rates Tribunal should apply the standard charges, That would imply that no standard charge could be fixed until the Railway Rates Tribunal had finished its duty of fixing standard rates for railway traffic, and that could not take place until the end or thereabouts of next year. I would further point out that the-standard charge for conveyance as suggested by the railways is totally different from the railway cost of conveyance. The railway cost of conveyance includes other services—terminal charges, loading and unloading, covering and uncovering.
Therefore it seems to me that the railway companies, if this Bill receives a Second Reading, will have to consider very carefully, in presenting their case to a Committee of this House, how and in what way they can best apply Part III to this particular problem, upon which, as I have said, I desire to reserve complete independence of judgment. They say, further, that they would be willing to submit themselves to the Railway and Canal Commission upon the matters of undue preference and facilities. As to facilities, I think it would be extremely difficult to say what were appropriate facilities, because the road traffic is not a definite and settled service. It would be a more or less haphazard service,
according to the requirements of their customers. As to undue preference, many questions would arise as to whether undue preference between the railway customer and the road customer occurred. The question of exceptional charges has to be met, and there, for railways, Part III does include a Clause which gives them a right to continue existing exceptional charges, and, subject to safeguards, to make new ones; but I am rather disposed to think that every charge for road traffic would, in the first instance, be an exceptional charge, and the variation between the standard charge when fixed, and the exceptional charge, might be as much as 40 per cent., and might establish a competitive rate which would put their competitors out of the market.
In these circumstances, what is the position? From the point of view of the Ministry of Transport, there can be no doubt of one thing, and I feel sure that in this I shall have the support of the whole House. We want, in these days, every encouragement to every form of transport which shall be efficient, which shall be economical, which shall be permanent, and which shall not be destructive of other forms of traffic in the long run, and shall not set up evils which would be worse than the present conditions. Amidst all these difficulties—and the problem is by no means easy; the solution of it is not obvious—I respectfully suggest to the House that it might be well advised to say that this is a private Bill—and the general practice of the House is to give a Second Reading to a private Bill, unless there be paramount considerations of public policy to the contrary—and to allow these matters to receive the fullest and most complete and searching inquiry by a Committee of the House. It might well be that upon a Motion for a Third Reading of this Bill, the House might still think that it was wise to reject it. It would be wise to reject it, in my opinion, so far as the House cares to have it, unless the dangers of monopoly, the dangers of crushing out of other forms of transport, are adequately guarded against; but, if those have been protected, then, in the interests of transport and competition, I would suggest that the Bill might well become operative.

Viscount ELVEDEN: I think I should rise now and speak for the proposers of this Bill, and say that, as far as is
possible for a director of one of these companies to give a personal guarantee, we are going to abide by the concessions that we are making, and that we are trying honestly to meet the difficulties of the situation. As far as I can, I want to give the assurance that I, for one, feel that it is important that we should get these powers, not so much in the interest of the companies as in the interest of the community. I am glad to think that Southend, which I represent, is served by a railway company which has these powers and if, therefore, they are of any use, the community of Southend will get them anyway. It seems very unfortunate that a group of companies that may be competing with them shall not have those powers, but I cannot help that; it is better for my constituency that they should have one than none. As for these powers, the hon. Baronet who moved this rejection seemed to imply that the Great Eastern Railway Company were really the anathema of all railway companies.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No.

Viscount ELVEDEN: At any rate, I thought that that was what the hon. Baronet meant. If I mistook his over-eloquence, I must be excused. They, at any rate, are the one held out as cutting the rate on motor transport at this moment. I can only say that, although the Great Eastern Railway Company have had these powers, apparently, for a considerable time, they have not succeeded in cutting out the small motor carriers from Southend, because I have had a number of letters from them, though I am not sure whether those letters are written in the interests of the community as a whole, or merely in the interests of their own trade. I believe a great deal of imagination has been expended on this private Bill. I think hon. Members have imagined a great many evil things that will come out of it, and I do not think they have used all the brain-power they have, because I cannot conceive that a railway company, with millions invested in its permanent way, is likely to try to transfer any large quantity of its traffic to the roads. Therefore, I appeal to the common sense of those who are listening to me to think whether they are not really saving in giving these powers. We want to use them for certain definite purposes. We want to use them when the line is congested tem-
porarily, while we are putting in a new line, increasing our railway facilities, increasing our actual permanent way accommodation. It would not pay us, in the long run, to try to take away from the cheap form of haulage great masses of goods carried by one or two men, and put them into a large number of vehicles each with a man or two men. It is not reasonable. We want to use these powers to develop new districts, and, surely, that is a thing that should appeal to those who wish for the good of the community while we are developing our trade. The railway company, without these powers, cannot develop a district without putting an enormous amount of capital, which is hard enough to come by, even for the community, in these days, into permanent way and the rolling stock upon it, whereas they can see whether there is anything in the trade by having these powers and using motor transport to see whether they can develop a district. Secondly, we are not able temporarily to relieve the congestion on our line. We must, as I understand, take goods, as they are sent to one of our receiving offices, by van to the railway, and from the railway, at the other terminal, take them by van and deliver them or leave them to be called for. It seems to me that in the interests of the community, if the distance is reasonable, we should be able to relieve ourselves of the transhipment of goods between van and rail on two occasions, and should be able to send them the whole way from door to door. It seems to me that that would be only in the interests of the community, because, if we were to do it on any large scale, we should be competing with the traffic on our line. I think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred to the high rates that are now charged on the railways.

Mr. CAIRNS: What do you mean by reasonable?

Viscount ELVEDEN: As a railway director, I am told that we may not lower those rates, that they were fixed by the Government, and that we may only lower them when the Rates Tribunal has considered them. That is not what we want this Bill for. We are going to lower them as soon as we can: but we must have this Bill for the two relatively small and practical advantages we see in it. I do not want to diminish their importance; but I
want to give a personal guarantee that we are going to play the game and play it fairly. I hope the Committee will be able to devise proper safeguards so that we need not depend upon the personal guarantee alone. The hon. Gentleman who opened the case for the railway companies has described the measures that we are proposing to meet the opposition, and I can assure the House that we are doing our best in that respect, and as far as we can we intend to stand by it.

Mr. KENNEDY: I will speak briefly, because I know many Members desire to take part in the Debate. I want to direct the attention of the House to one or two considerations not yet touched upon. The House is grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for the judicial and impartial statement of the objects of this Measure which he has presented to the House. But I should like the Government to give us something more. I hope the House will be left with perfect freedom to take part in the Division. If this freedom be given the Bill will not reach the Committee stage. The Bill is incapable of being made a useful instrument of national transport service. It is a symptom of a very dangerous tendency which this House would do well to resist. It is not only an expression of the inevitable tendency towards that monopoly which a long period of competition always creates, it is an expression of what I am entitled to describe as up to date political and industrial syndicalism. It seeks to establish a rail and road monopoly for the transport of goods. It would be dangerous for the community to grant any extension of the existing statutory powers vested in the railway companies. The promoters of the Bill are rather mixed. We see the lion and the lamb lying down together. I do not say which is the lion or which is the lamb. Subsequent events may prove which is which. But I do call upon the House to consider the analogous picture of what may arise if the principle embodied in this Bill is to receive legislative sanction all round. There are Members who represent the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. What reception would the House give to a proposal introduced by those Members for statutory powers to be given to coal owners, not only to give them a monopoly for the production of coal, but for the
transport and for the complete control of the retail and wholesale distribution of coal. I am certain a proposal of that kind would be recognised as an iniquity, and be voted down.

Sir F. BANBURY: They can do it now.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. KENNEDY: Yes, railway companies can do now all that is necessary, and all that is safe for the community to allow them to do. The principle of this Bill is to vest them with the same powers with regard to road transport as they now exercise on rails. In order to decide whether it is advisable to grant these powers to the railway companies, I would like the House to consider how, up to this moment, the railway companies have used the statutory powers they are now able to exercise. They come to this House, pleading that the service of the community and the public good is their sole consideration. On their own confession, they can easily be convicted of quite another object. In one of the Memoranda circulated among Members in support of this Measure there is the confession that in 1921 6,000,000 tons of goods, formerly carried on rail, have been transferred to the road services, and the promoters of the Bill ask for powers to enable them to recover that lost traffic. We are up against no mere temporary problem. The issue is between an obsolete method of transport and a new, more efficient, and more economical method of road transport. If railway companies obtain these statutory powers, they would inevitably exercise them just as prejudicially to the interests of the community as they have exercised the powers they now possess. Take the manner in which they are now using their statutory powers. Railway rates are 120 per cent, above the pre-War level. [An HON. MEMBEE: "What about wages?"] Wages are not 120 per cent, above pre-War level. If they are, they are not too high, if you consider the starvation pre-War level. At any rate, they stand at no higher level than that of any other public service that can be mentioned. In regard to the general attitude of the Railway Companies to public services of another character, I need only remind the House that this day the railway companies gave evidence of their real attitude towards the principle of competition which they seek to promote in
this Measure. The Corporation of Birmingham is seeking at this moment to promote a Bill to enable it to control its public weigh bridges. What attitude are the railway companies adopting towards that Measure? Their attitude is a bitter, hostility. In the East End of London corporations are seeking to extend their tramway services, and to link up and unify those services, and the railway companies adopt an attitude of bitter hostility towards that desire. Wherever the railway companies can stifle competition in their monopoly interests they do so. I beg humbly to submit on behalf of those I represent in this House, and I hope on behalf of the majority of the party I am connected with, that this Bill will not receive a Second Reading, but that the whole matter of the transport services will, on an early date, receive the attention of the Government, so that national transport will be taken up as a Government responsibility, and discussed freely, as it should be in this House.

Mr. THOMAS: I only want to take exception to one statement of my hon. Friend, and I want to make it perfectly clear to the House that, unintentionally, he has left a wrong impression in the House. Every party, as I understand it in this House, including the Government as a party, are perfectly free to approach this question apart from any party ties. That is exactly the position of the Labour party. The Division Lobby will test the relative merits of our party, but I only desire to say quite clearly that anything I say on the matter and anything my hon. Friend says on the matter cannot be taken as representing the party, because the party is free to consider the case on its merits. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend intends the railway directors to be the lion and me the lamb, or vice versa, but at all events I am going to state the case, because it is much better on a Second Reading Debate to meet what many people fear. While very little has been said in the House to-night about the relationship, as my hon. Friend calls it, the unholy alliance, between the railway companies and the railway trade unions, I am at least going to face the facts. In approaching this question, let the House consider that there are only two ways by which capital and labour can work together. There is the policy which says, "Get everything you can out of the employer, but do as little for him as
you can, because he is your natural enemy and he must be opposed. Do all you can to make it impossible for him to carry on his industry." There is the other policy which says, "We want to get the maximum reward for our labour. We want good wages and short hours. We want to be able to have a decent existence, but we can only do that by at least recognising that in return for demanding the best we have to give the best." My hon. Friend has challenged that very issue because we cannot have it both ways. When railway companies and railway men are both satisfied that it is in their best interest to take a certain course, if you are immediately to raise the cry that that is an unholy alliance between capital and labour, then the only alternative is saying to the men, "Oppose your employer, no matter what the merits of the case may be."
The railwaymen in this matter should consider the question in this spirit, first, is it to our interest as railway men that these powers should be conceded, but even if it is not to our interest as railway-men will it be against the best interests of the travelling public? If it is against the interests of railwaymen and of the travelling public then it should be opposed. If, on the other hand, it is in the interests of the railwaymen and of the travelling public as well, then certainly there should be no objection to the railway companies and the railwaymen joining together and asking this House to give a Second Reading to the Bill. I want to meet quite fairly the other point that has been raised. If these men come together in one union, and if the object of the railwaymen is only to get these men into the union in order to promote a strike, well it is very significant, as my hon. Friend has indicated, that there are very strong divisions in our party as to the advantages of that. The answer I give is this. No one can give any guarantee in this House against strikes. He would be a foolish person and a foolish Labour leader who would attempt to do so, and the House of Commons would be sufficiently alive either to the imbecility of the individual who gave such advice or to one who would attach importance to him for giving it. I believe the relationship that exists in the railway world to-day is not only better than ever existed before, but every general manager
in this country, without exception, will tell you that the efficiency in the railway services is greater than it was before. The relationship being better, there is more anxiety to play the game, and do the right thing. That in itself must tend to the advantage of all concerned, but I want to submit that there is one thing that influences this House in connection with this Bill, and that is what is called the doctrine of monopoly, the feeling that here is a huge corporation seeking powers that are not only dangerous in themselves, but which will create a monopoly, which it is the clear intention of the promoters to establish.
I want to say a word from the point of view of the working men in the broadest sense. It is admitted that 6,000,000 tons of traffic were taken from the railway companies last year and run by the roads. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to approach that by saying that that must not be made a final basis. I would remind him that the figures at the disposal of his Department show that not only is that what we call the cream of traffic, but that if that continues it is inevitable that the railway rates instead of being decreased must be increased. Let me first take those Members who are interested in agricultural constituencies. The difficulty at this moment in agricultural constituencies is the absence of facilities for bringing goods to the market. No one, unless he can command a full truck, can get his goods to the market, with the result that every small farmer knows that, no matter what he produces on his allotment or farm, he is hopelessly handicapped, and the public are prevented from having the benefit of his produce. That is the situation at the moment, because the House knows that you could not get the capital merely to lay down a new service of railways. Not only would it not pay, but you could not get the capital to do it. Therefore, the only alternative is to provide some feeder whereby this traffic may be picked up and ultimately transported by railway.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: You have got that power.

Mr. THOMAS: That interruption at least shows that my hon. Friend, who is opposing this Bill, wants that to be brought about. I say, not only is that not so, but——

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know that it is so.

Mr. THOMAS: Here is a clear case of fact. Take the group with which we are dealing at the moment. As the House knows, there is one group that has already got the powers which are asked for under this Bill. I am dealing now exclusively with the railway companies which are asking for the powers which are already possessed by the one group. I repeat, that unless they are allowed to develop a motor service on the road, they can never give to agriculturists the facilities which they require and which will be of benefit to them and to the country.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I say that they all have this power.

Mr. THOMAS: I would ask the House to follow this point. Take the business men in this House. They look to facilities as the first consideration. How many Members of this House realise that there is no goods traffic running by day? What is the result of that to the manufacturer? Take the case of the business man at Bradford, Leeds, Manchester, in South Wales, who wants to get his goods quickly to London or anywhere else. Supposing he is ready to send it and it arrives in the middle of the day, or at 10 or 11 in the morning. The goods may be sent to the railway station, but they are not despatched, and cannot be despatched, until night. Is there a business man who will assume for a moment that that is the way of efficiency The railway companies are deprived of the facilities which they could develop for short-distance traffic. The companies could carry those goods by the road, saving loading and unloading, and every bit of traffic saved in that way would release wagons and engines, and relieve congestion at railway sidings. That is the only way in which you can get an efficient transport service. I am speaking wholly from a practical railway-man's point of view, not on the side of monopoly, but of what actually happens in railway experience. There is no manufacturer or business man in this House who would deny the accuracy of my statement.
If it be true that the object of those who oppose this Bill is to prevent a monopoly, what is the situation? Is there at this moment not a combine in many parts of
the country, running vehicles on the roads? The difference is this: The combines now running on the roads are subject to no Rates Tribunal; they are subject to no check and no interference; and their complaint, incidentally, is that if this Bill passes they cannot go on with their monopoly, but will be brought to the level of those who honestly intend to compete with them. Instead of this Bill providing for a monopoly, as has been alleged, it would be the breaking down of a monopoly that already exists. It will be observed that none of those opposing the Bill has got up to-day and said, "We, who are to-day the monopolists, we, who plead in the interests of an existing monopoly, are prepared to agree to a Rates Tribunal which will regulate our rates." None of them dares to say that, and none of them has even hinted at it. Why? There is only one answer. If they did so their whole case would be gone. My hon. Friend here, the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) was certainly not speaking for them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I would rather see a little more of the right hon. Gentleman's face.

Mr. THOMAS: With the greatest respect, Sir, I was rather directing my remarks towards those who are going into the Division Lobby. I was trying to point out to those who are raising the bogey of a monopoly that the raising of such a bogey cannot be justified. The House should fully understand the situation. If a Second Reading be given to the Bill, and even if it passes the Committee stage in its present form, instead of circumstances arising such as have been indicated, there would be the best guarantee that the existing monopoly would be broken down. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) informed the House, and it was generally cheered, that the Scotch companies were still retaining the passenger Clauses. It is only fair that the House should understand that that is not so. Many municipalities and many local authorities have already petitioned Members of this House against the passenger Clauses of the Bill. The passenger Clauses in this Bill have been dropped, and the passenger Clauses in the Scottish Bill have been dropped. I
hope those who heard the statement of my right hon. Friend will accept the statement I now make as a fact. In any case this is only a Second Reading Debate, and points of objection can be raised in Committee. The whole Bill can be examined there, but I hope at least a Second Reading will be given to the Bill. I sincerely hope it will not be rejected, because, fortunately or unfortunately, we and the railway companies find ourselves in agreement. An hon. Member has asked us to picture the coalowners and the Miners' Federation working together. That is a picture I shall welcome. It is a picture from which we ought not to run away. It is a picture of which this House ought not to be afraid. It would be far better if the Miners' Federation acid the coalowners, the railway companies and the railway men, and all other industries were frankly to face the fact that they can get no more out of industry than is put into it, and that the maximum can be put into industry by both sides recognising their mutual obligations.

Captain Viscount CURZON: There is one interest which seems to be in great danger of being submerged to-night, and that is the interest of the general public. I congratulate the promoters of the Bill upon the successful lobbying which has been undertaken on its behalf. I do not believe there is a railway director or shareholder in the House who is not present. The interests of the general public, however, should not be lost sight of. Anybody who uses the roads of this country, as I do, must be painfully aware of the endeavours which are being made by local authorities to try to keep abreast of the necessities of the time and keep the roads up to date.
There is one thing which the promoters of this Bill have omitted to say anything about, and that is the increased traffic which will be thrown on the roads as a result of this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Certainly it will, because the whole reason for this Bill is the competition of the roads with the railways, and if it were not for the competition, and the successful competition, of the roads, the railways would never have sought these powers. The Noble Lord the Member for Southend (Viscount Elveden), who spoke on behalf of the Bill, said it would not pay to put two
men on to a truck, but that the railways only wanted to develop new districts. Of course, it will not pay. They will have to develop them at a loss. Railways are not philanthropic societies, however. This service cannot be put on solely on a money-making basis, but it is put on in order to stamp down competition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I maintain that it is so, and in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has just said, I maintain that this is the first step towards the establishment of a great monopoly.
There are two checks on the railways to-day; one is road transport, and the other coastwise shipping. Roads are the first object, and the next object may be coastwise shipping, and when you have it all under the control of these great corporations, you will have a monopoly in its most extreme form. That is my view, and it is the view taken on this Bill by that Committee. I am not unalterably opposed to all forms of road transport passing to the railways, but I know that this view is shared by a great many Members, that this is a very great problem, not to be dealt with piecemeal. Deal with it by a Royal Commission or by some sort of impartial Commission, but I maintain that a Committee of this House inquiring into the position of this Bill would be unable to apply it to the whole country. I hope very much that the Ministry of Transport will hold out some hope of an impartial inquiry into the whole road question. The vehicles that do the most damage to the roads do not pay the heaviest tax, and there is a great case for inquiry into the whole question of rates and upkeep of roads, and I say that until we have had that inquiry this Bill is premature. Therefore I hope the House will not give it a Second Reading.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: At this time of night I am sure the House would prefer that one should not attempt to reply to any speech or argument, but put in a very few sentences what is the resolved and unanimous opinion of the road authorities of England and Wales, and, I believe, also of Scotland, on a matter of high consequence. I must indeed be allowed to say that the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport was a very remarkable one. After several minutes
of most fascinating and weighty indecision, he finally said that, as this was brought in as a private Bill, we should let it go to a Private Bill Committee, but he had said at the outset of his speech that this is a Bill which affects the whole relations of road transport throughout the country.
I am here to say a few words in a quite unprovocative way that it is really the considered opinion of highway authorities that this Bill ought not to proceed on Private Bill lines. You may have very great issues which are yet local. It may be of great importance to a great city whether it is enlarged or not. It may be of high consequence whether some powerful local authority buys, or does not buy, some local monopoly service, but when you have an issue which, by common consent of all the speakers in this debate, must-affect the whole country, a large portion of it directly, and the rest of the country by implication, is it right that an issue of that magnitude, on which opinion is closely and deeply divided, should be settled by a vast expenditure of money, and the concentrated responsibility of five gentlemen upstairs, instead of by the House in the method of a public Bill?
I also desire to say that the position of local authorities with regard to roads is very much graver in 1922 than has been set forth in any detail to the House to-night. The development of road traffic, following upon the excessive strain which the War put upon all kinds of highways, has made the problem of maintaining highways one of the greatest possible difficulty. Again and again, when great municipalities have sought powers to run omnibuses and tramways, the railway companies, quite within their rights, have asked to be treated as a road authority in respect of their bridges and approaches, and got the Adaptability Clause put in. Yet the same railway companies in this case will not hear of any Clause of Adaptability.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not a fact that at the present moment the railway companies contribute more to the upkeep of the roads than any other body in the country?

Sir R. ADKINS: If my right hon. Friend will allow me, with his usual courtesy, to give, another sentence, I will complete the argument I began. The
argument I was addressing to the House was that the very railway companies who insist upon the Clause of Adaptability when a great borough seeks to run omnibus routes, refuse to consider a Clause of Adaptability when they themselves wish to run omnibus routes. My right hon. Friend talks about rates. Does he not know, better perhaps than any other Member of the House, that the whole theory and practice of railways in this country is to give to railways an exclusive monopoly of a certain kind of transit on a certain route, with which no one can compete, and in return for that, and in return for the power of receiving goods and bringing them to their destination, they pay rates, as they ought to pay rates. Therefore, on behalf of many boroughs in England, as well as on behalf of road authorities generally, we ask the House of Commons not by Private Bill machinery to embarrass further this national question on a sectional and piecemeal Bill. We ask the House of Commons to reject the Bill, not because we are saying that railways must under no conditions ever run services on roads.
We ask the House not to allow this to he done in this way or at this time. We share the position put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) in saying that we think it is a matter for general, impartial, and exhaustive inquiry. I assure the House that those county councils who rather welcome, under proper conditions, transport by road by the railway companies, and those county councils who are opposed in principle to it, are all united in asking the House, first, not to deal with this by private Bill, and, secondly, to insist upon some Clause of adaptability such as is brought in when boroughs themselves try to put transport on the road. You cannot win back five or six millions on which the emotions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby concentrated themselves without putting a great many more vehicles on the road in competition with those there; consequently, that is to make the burden of road upkeep, now well nigh intolerable, altogether impossible for the community under present conditions. Therefore, we say, so long as there is no adaptability Clause—and that is said to be a matter of principle—so long as the machinery of private Bill legislation,
appropriate only to local and particular areas, is used for this general and fundamental issue, we appeal to the House of Commons, in the interests of the whole community and in the interest of proper Governmental procedure, to reject this Bill.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Leslie Scott): I only intervene for a, few minutes, and purely as a private Member. I have been bombarded, like most Members of the House, with extraordinarily well-argued memorials from both sides, in equal numbers, and with arguments which appeal to me with almost equal cogency. I sympathise very much with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and deprecate the strictures passed upon him as a man who is unable to make up his mind, and therefore has suggested the course he has. It seems to me that the essence of the position is this: not that we should consider the interests of the railway shareholders, nor primarily the interests of those who are actually to-day engaged in road transport as commercial concerns on the roads, but the interests of the greater body of people who want their goods carried. From that point of view the essential thing is that the public as a whole should get their goods carried by the greatest efficiency, the greatest speed suitable for the goods in question, and at the lowest cost. I agree absolutely with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins), that this is essentially a national question, and not a particular question affecting one particular group of railways.
I do feel from the view put before us that a Select Committee of this House, with their procedure of examination and cross-examination of witnesses, is the procedure which does tend in a peculiarly successful way to the elucidation and examination of the kind of arguments which have been submitted to each and all of us in this House in the memorials which we have received from the two sides. Therefore, although I sympathise very much with the views of my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir R. Adkins) in regard to this particular proposal, I would like to see this Bill have the advantage of being explained and criticised in the forceful manner which is possible in our private bill procedure. I intend to vote for the
Second Beading, and I shall do so because I feel that this House cannot tonight pass a considered decision on the basic principle involved in this Measure. We do not know enough about it, and consequently, as a private Member, I suggest that it may be possible when the Bill comes back, if it does come back, the Preamble having been passed, to recommit the Bill with such knowledge as we get from the Private Bill Committee after an examination of such material as goes before that Committee, to a joint committee of both Houses with a general instruction from this House to consider the whole question of the principle involved.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Why not do it now?

Sir L. SCOTT: I know that is possible now, but my own view is that the kind of preliminary examination which a private Bill gets at the hands of those much-abused but very useful persons, the lawyers, is a desirable procedure. Therefore, I would suggest that the Bill should receive a Second Reading, the House making up its mind that we must have some opportunity after to-day, with a better knowledge of the pros and cons, of passing a judgment on the whole matter.

Mr. LAMBERT: We have just had a most extraordinary speech from the Treasury bench and I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on making his maiden speech as Solicitor-General.

Sir L. SCOTT: As a private Member.

Mr. LAMBERT: What is the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House? He says that the House cannot decide this matter to-night, but that we may vote for the Second Reading, refer it to the Private Bill Committee, and after that Committee has considered it with the assistance of those eminent gentlemen who are colleagues of his at the Parliamentary Bar, it is to come back to the House and be referred to the Joint Committee of both Houses. I can quite understand my right hon. and learned Friend's feelings as a private Member, but I am certain that no such proposal would ever emanate from a Government Department, because that is a negation of the whole system of our private Bill procedure. I agree with my right hon. Friend that this matter ought
not to be rushed, and ought not to be rushed to-night, because it is a matter which is vital for the whole country. It is not simply a matter for the railway companies or the transport people, but the general public. Is there a man here to-night who is satisfied with the present condition of railway affairs? Is there a man here who is satisfied with the present scale of railway rates for passengers and goods?
I say that we are receiving from the railway companies a worse service at a higher price. They are like the Post Office. The railway companies say they are losing traffic. Of course they are, and why? Because their rates are too high. It is the general public who are suffering. Railway companies to-day are strangling trade and absolutely throttling agriculture. I had a case only this morning, coming up from Devonshire, as to how in Penzance they cannot send their early potatoes away because of the railway rates. Lower railway rates are vital, and in order to get them I believe the competition of the roads is vital also. Of course, the railway companies dislike competition, because it will bring down their rates, but is it not in the interests of the general public that rates should come down? Of course it is. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) speak with great eloquence on this matter, and say that the railway companies had lost 6,000,000 tons in 1921 under the agreement with the Government. Why have they lost it? If they had had reasonable railway rates they would not have lost it, and, as my right hon. Friend said, if this continues the railway rates must be raised for other portions of traffic. Why? Surely the railway companies are to-day charging rates at the very maximum that the traffic will bear.

Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: Higher than any others in the world.

Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend, who is a great expert in these matters, says that our railway rates are the highest in the world, and yet in spite of all that the railways come here to-night and ask for power to squash this new competition. They say, Let us have an opportunity to get into it, let us use our enormous power, our £1,300,000,000 of capital, in order to come in and endeavour to squash this new competition. Of course, the railway com-
panies can come in and use their enormous power. They will drive the road transport companies off the road. They will then have a monopoly, a trust, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby will be assisting them in forming a trust for the transport of the country. No; if railway companies want to get back traffic they should lower their rates. Why should we agriculturists, the people who have to pay the rates for the roads, pay the extra rates that must be entailed if the railway companies put their transport vehicles on the roads. We must do so because they will increase the wear and tear of the roads. The railway companies have killed the canals, and they want to kill the roads. Here are two big railway companies, the Forth Western Railway Company and the Midland Railway Company, coming here for these powers. The Midland Company and the North Western Company have hitherto been in competition with each other, but they have now joined together, and want to come in and use the roads as well. On this Committee to which reference has been made, out of right members, only one, who was not interested, recommended that these powers should be given to the railway companies. I say, without fear of successful contradiction, that the railway companies to-day have their hands full. Let them deal with their present problems. Let them bring their rates down. My right hon. Friend near me says they have not their pockets full. I do not want them to put their hands into my pockets any more than they have done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby says the road transport authorities have a monopoly. That is not so. Anyone can run a motor on the roads——

Major HAMILTON: Except the railway companies.

Mr. LAMBERT: And no one but the railway companies can run a railway carriage on a line. There is no monopoly on the roads to-day. I ask the House, to-night to reject this Bill. If this Bill is to come up at all let it come up as a considered measure of the Government. Let it go to a joint Committee of both Houses or to a Select Committee, but do not let the House make the mistake of entrusting the railway companies—now they are in the throes of revising their rates—with these enormous new powers which I am convinced will redound to the
injury of the trade and agriculture of this country.

Major HAMILTON: My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has made a suggestion with which I do not agree. I think that this House should give a Second Reading to this Bill, so that the whole of its provisions may be considered in Committee. When the Bill, as revised in Committee, would come down to the House for Third Reading. We have heard the guarantee of a director of one of the railway companies concerned.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is anyone in this House supposed to be here as a director of a railway company? Are Members not here as representatives of the general public?

Major HAMILTON: If the hon. Member had a little longer experience in this House, I do not think he would have made that interruption. We have had a guarantee given by a director of the railway

company, that the object of the companies is to fall in with the wishes of the House and of the public. Therefore let us give the railway companies a chance to accept such Amendments as may be moved in Committee, and when the Bill comes down to the House revised by the Committee we shall have the right either to reject it or read it the Third time.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER rose to put the Question.

Mr. MACQUISTEN rose——

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member must please be seated when Mr. Speaker rises.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 141.

Division No. 89.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Neal, Arthur


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Grundy, T. W.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hallwood, Augustine
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hancock, John George
Parker, James


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Brassey, H. L. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Higham, Charles Frederick
Pratt, John William


Butcher, Sir John George
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rae, H. Norman


Cairns, John
Hirst, G. H.
Ramsden, G. T.


Cape, Thomas
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rees, Sir J. D, (Nottingham, East)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)


Clough, Sir Robert
Hudson, R. M.
Reid, D. D.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Jameson, John Gordon
Royden, Sir Thomas


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones. J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)
Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, East)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dockreil, Sir Maurice
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Seager, Sir William


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lunn, William
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Sexton, James


Elveden, Viscount
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Simm, M. T.


Finney, Samuel
Manville, Edward
Sitch, Charles H.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Gillis, William
Morris, Richard
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K,


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Glyn, Major Ralph
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Swan, J. E.


Gould, James C.
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Nail, Major Joseph
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wilson, James (Dudley)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wilson, Joseph H. (South Shields)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Vickers, Douglas
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)



Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Wintringham, Margaret
Mr. J. H. Thomas and Mr. MacVeagh.


Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Wise, Frederick



NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Gilbert, James Daniel
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Glanville, Harold James
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Atkey, A. R.
Grant, James Augustus
Morrison, Hugh


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gregory, Holman
Naylor, Thomas Ellis


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Barnston, Major Harry
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pearce, Sir William


Barrand, A. R.
Hayward, Evan
Peel, Col. Hn. s. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Perring, William George


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Purchase, H. G.


Blane, T. A.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Howard, Major S. G.
Rose, Frank H.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Royce, William Stapleton


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hurd, Percy A.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Irving, Dan
Seddon, J. A.


Bruton, Sir James
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Stevens, Marshall


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Sugden, W. H.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm, Ladywood)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sutton, John Edward


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Kennedy, Thomas
Taylor, J.


Colfox, Major Wm- Phillips
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kiley, James Daniel
Townley, Maximilian G.


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd, George Butler
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lorden, John William
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Windsor, Viscount


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Winterton, Earl


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Doyle, N. Grattan
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Woolcock, William James U.


Evans, Ernest
Macquisten, F. A.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Maddocks, Henry
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mallalieu, Frederick William



Fildes, Henry
Martin, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Forrest, Walter
Matthews, David
Mr. George Roberts and Viscount Curzon.


Galbraith, Samuel
Molson, Major John Elsdale



Ganzoni, Sir John
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz



Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £12,010,604 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,562,844), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate
Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and to Special Schemes pursuant to Sections 5 and 18 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as amended by Section 2 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, and Section 2 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921, etc.; Contribution to the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Fund; Payments to Associations under Section 17 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and Section 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911; Out-of-Work Donation; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers and of Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and the Training of Women; and Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life, also the Expenses of the Industrial Court.
Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,010,504, be granted for the said Service.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [7th April] as refers to Consolidation Bills be now considered."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message, to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Major Birchall, Sir Thomas Bramsdon, Mr. Hartshorn, Mr. Kidd, Mr. Herbert Lewis, and Mr. Rawlinson nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for papers and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Calne, which was presented on the 6th April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Grays and Tilbury Gas Company, which was presented on the 16th March and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Romford Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 6th April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade
under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Wellington (Salop) Gas Company, which was presented on the 3rd April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Weston-super-Mare. Gas Light Company, which was presented on the 5th April and published, be approved."—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) ACT, 1921.

Resolved,
That the draft Order in Council, presented the 10th day of February, 1922, directing, in pursuance of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, that the powers and duties exerciseable by agricultural committees in Scotland shall be exercised by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, be approved."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSION ORDER, 1922.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions Order, 1922, laid before Parliament on the 27th day of March, 1922, in pursuance of Section 4 (3) of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1919, may be annulled.
The object of this Motion is to call attention to a serious omission in the Royal Irish Constabulary Pension Order, 1922. This Order fails to make provision for pensions for the widows of officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary who died or retired between 1st September, 1918, and 28th August, 1921, and for allowances and gratuities to the dependents of such officers. I am given to understand that the Chief Secretary may be able to give me a satisfactory assurance on these matters; and therefore, without further preface, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The Pension Order was made under Section 4 (3) of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1919. If we have the power under the Act, and I myself submit that we have the power under the Act, to make an amending Order, I can assure the hon. and learned Member for York that the
suggestions he has put forward will be met. Certain consequential Amendments will be necessary in the amending Order, and I shall see that they are made, and that such amending Order will be laid on the Table of the House.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the very satisfactory statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, for which I thank him—and I hope that I may also be allowed to thank him on behalf of the gallant men of the Royal Irish Constabulary—I ask leave to withdraw.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

HAYDOCK COLLIERIES, LANCASHIRE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. S. WALSH: It will be remembered that last week I gave notice that on the Adjournment, I would raise the matter of the Nos. 1 and 2 pits, Parr, St. Helens, Lancashire, belonging to the Haydock Collieries, Limited, regarding which I had asked a Private Notice question of the Secretary of Mines. I have to thank the hon. Gentleman for taking action so quickly. He has given me, since I came to the House this afternoon, a statement setting out the existing situation at these collieries. I do not intend to deal with
the Report immediately, but there are statements in it which I cannot accept. When the workmen's inspector reported at the beginning of March last on the accumulations of coal dust in the mine, in consequence of the introduction of riddles and forks, nothing was done for some time. Colonel Pilkington had previously paid a visit to the same place, and had found that there was less dust in the mane than had been complained of, but my information is to the effect that preparations had been made in advance of his visit whereby the accumulations of dust were removed. I gave notice last Wednesday that I intended to raise this question on Thursday, and that very day, Thursday, six men who had worked on the day turn had to come back at night to help to clear the coal dust away and to stone-dust the road. A number of men on the day shift stayed to assist with the same work. On that same day 15 boxes of stone dust from the United Alkali works were sent down the pit with the necessary brushes to sweep up and dust the roads. A number of boxes filled with small coal and dust were also sent out of the pit—exactly what the men are contending for, namely, that thi6 small coal and dust should be sent out of the pit.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock till To-morrow.